| Title |
Clinical efficacy and safety of autologous stem cell transplantation for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s107199 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rong Li, Xiao-Ming Li, Jun-Rong Chen |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy and safety of stem cells for the treatment of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant published clinical studies. A computerized search was conducted for randomized controlled trials of stem cell therapy for STEMI. Twenty-eight randomized controlled trials with a total of 1,938 STEMI patients were included in the present meta-analysis. Stem cell therapy resulted in an improvement in long-term (12 months) left ventricular ejection fraction of 3.15% (95% confidence interval 1.01-5.29, P<0.01). The 3-month to 4-month, 6-month, and 12-month left ventricular end-systolic volume showed favorable results in the stem cell therapy group compared with the control group (P≤0.05). Significant decrease was also observed in left ventricular end-diastolic volume after 3-month to 4-month and 12-month follow-up compared with controls (P<0.05). Wall mean score index was reduced significantly in stem cell therapy group when compared with the control group at 6-month and 12-month follow-up (P=0.01). Moreover, our analysis showed a significant change of 12-month infarct size decrease in STEMI patients treated with stem cells compared with controls (P<0.01). In addition, no significant difference was found between treatment group and control in adverse reactions (P>0.05). Overall, stem cell therapy is efficacious in the treatment of patients with STEMI, with low rates of adverse events compared with control group patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 28 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Researcher | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 11 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 34% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 11 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 25 October 2017.
All research outputs
#14,387,227
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#591
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,368
of 381,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#10
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 381,020 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.