↓ Skip to main content

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) as skeletal therapeutics–an update

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Biomedical Science, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
143 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
Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) as skeletal therapeutics–an update
Published in
Journal of Biomedical Science, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12929-016-0254-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hamid Saeed, Muhammad Ahsan, Zikria Saleem, Mehwish Iqtedar, Muhammad Islam, Zeeshan Danish, Asif Manzoor Khan

Abstract

Mesenchymal stem cells hold the promise to treat not only several congenital and acquired bone degenerative diseases but also to repair and regenerate morbid bone tissues. Utilizing MSCs, several lines of evidences advocate promising clinical outcomes in skeletal diseases and skeletal tissue repair/regeneration. In this context, both, autologous and allogeneic cell transfer options have been utilized. Studies suggest that MSCs are transplanted either alone by mixing with autogenous plasma/serum or by loading onto repair/induction supportive resorb-able scaffolds. Thus, this review is aimed at highlighting a wide range of pertinent clinical therapeutic options of MSCs in the treatment of skeletal diseases and skeletal tissue regeneration. Additionally, in skeletal disease and regenerative sections, only the early and more recent preclinical evidences are discussed followed by all the pertinent clinical studies. Moreover, germane post transplant therapeutic mechanisms afforded by MSCs have also been conversed. Nonetheless, assertive use of MSCs in the clinic for skeletal disorders and repair is far from a mature therapeutic option, therefore, posed challenges and future directions are also discussed. Importantly, for uniformity at all instances, term MSCs is used throughout the review.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Spain 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 139 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 18%
Student > Master 26 18%
Student > Bachelor 18 13%
Researcher 18 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Other 18 13%
Unknown 27 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 31 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 17%
Materials Science 4 3%
Engineering 4 3%
Other 12 8%
Unknown 34 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 06 August 2016.
All research outputs
#1,843,483
of 8,172,683 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biomedical Science
#57
of 369 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,510
of 271,895 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biomedical Science
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,172,683 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 369 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 271,895 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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.