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 |
How do we choose the best donor for T-cell-replete, HLA-haploidentical transplantation?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Hematology & Oncology, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13045-016-0265-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ying-Jun Chang, Leo Luznik, Ephraim J. Fuchs, Xiao-Jun Huang |
| Abstract |
In haploidentical stem cell transplantations (haplo-SCT), nearly all patients have more than one donor. A key issue in the haplo-SCT setting is the search for the best donor, because donor selection can significantly impact the incidences of acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease, transplant-related mortality, and relapse, in addition to overall survival. In this review, we focused on factors associated with transplant outcomes following unmanipulated haplo-SCT with anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) or after T-cell-replete haplo-SCT with post-transplantation cyclophosphamide (PT/Cy). We summarized the effects of the primary factors, including donor-specific antibodies against human leukocyte antigens (HLA); donor age and gender; killer immunoglobulin-like receptor-ligand mismatches; and non-inherited maternal antigen mismatches. We also offered some expert recommendations and proposed an algorithm for selecting donors for unmanipulated haplo-SCT with ATG and for T-cell-replete haplo-SCT with PT/Cy. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 74 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 14 | 19% |
| Researcher | 14 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 16 | 21% |
| Unknown | 12 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 42 | 56% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 5 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 4% |
| Engineering | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Unknown | 15 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 14 April 2016.
All research outputs
#20,320,000
of 22,862,742 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Hematology & Oncology
#1,035
of 1,192 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#254,967
of 300,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Hematology & Oncology
#27
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,862,742 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,192 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 300,876 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.