You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Combining regenerative medicine strategies to provide durable reconstructive options: auricular cartilage tissue engineering
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Stem Cell Research & Therapy, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13287-015-0273-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zita M. Jessop, Muhammad Javed, Iris A. Otto, Emman J. Combellack, Siân Morgan, Corstiaan C. Breugem, Charles W. Archer, Ilyas M. Khan, William C. Lineaweaver, Moshe Kon, Jos Malda, Iain S. Whitaker |
| Abstract |
Recent advances in regenerative medicine place us in a unique position to improve the quality of engineered tissue. We use auricular cartilage as an exemplar to illustrate how the use of tissue-specific adult stem cells, assembly through additive manufacturing and improved understanding of postnatal tissue maturation will allow us to more accurately replicate native tissue anisotropy. This review highlights the limitations of autologous auricular reconstruction, including donor site morbidity, technical considerations and long-term complications. Current tissue-engineered auricular constructs implanted into immune-competent animal models have been observed to undergo inflammation, fibrosis, foreign body reaction, calcification and degradation. Combining biomimetic regenerative medicine strategies will allow us to improve tissue-engineered auricular cartilage with respect to biochemical composition and functionality, as well as microstructural organization and overall shape. Creating functional and durable tissue has the potential to shift the paradigm in reconstructive surgery by obviating the need for donor sites. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 119 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 21 | 18% |
| Researcher | 11 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 26 | 22% |
| Unknown | 24 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 27% |
| Engineering | 17 | 14% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 12 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 8% |
| Chemistry | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 14 | 12% |
| Unknown | 29 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 March 2016.
All research outputs
#14,834,028
of 22,842,950 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cell Research & Therapy
#1,205
of 2,420 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,016
of 396,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cell Research & Therapy
#27
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,842,950 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,420 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 396,721 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.