↓ Skip to main content

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy promotes neurogenesis: where do we stand?

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Gas Research, June 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#40 of 354)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
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.
Title
Hyperbaric oxygen therapy promotes neurogenesis: where do we stand?
Published in
Medical Gas Research, June 2011
DOI 10.1186/2045-9912-1-14
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jun Mu, Paul R Krafft, John H Zhang

Abstract

Neurogenesis in adults, initiated by injury to the central nervous system (CNS) presents an autologous repair mechanism. It has been suggested that hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) enhances neurogenesis which accordingly may improve functional outcome after CNS injury. In this present article we aim to review experimental as well as clinical studies on the subject of HBOT and neurogenesis. We demonstrate hypothetical mechanism of HBOT on cellular transcription factors including hypoxia-inducible factors (HIFs) and cAMP response element binding (CREB). We furthermore reveal the discrepancy between experimental findings and clinical trials in regards of HBOT. Further translational preclinical studies followed by improved clinical trials are needed to elucidate potential benefits of HBOT.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 18%
Student > Master 7 13%
Other 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Professor 4 7%
Other 13 23%
Unknown 13 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 16%
Neuroscience 4 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 13 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 27 October 2022.
All research outputs
#2,005,900
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Medical Gas Research
#40
of 354 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,115
of 127,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Gas Research
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 354 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
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 127,312 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.