| Title |
Current perspectives in stem cell research for knee cartilage repair
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Stem cells and cloning advances and applications, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.2147/sccaa.s42880 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Patrick Orth, Ana Rey-Rico, Jagadeesh K Venkatesan, Henning Madry, Magali Cucchiarini |
| Abstract |
Protocols based on the delivery of stem cells are currently applied in patients, showing encouraging results for the treatment of articular cartilage lesions (focal defects, osteoarthritis). Yet, restoration of a fully functional cartilage surface (native structural organization and mechanical functions) especially in the knee joint has not been reported to date, showing the need for improved designs of clinical trials. Various sources of progenitor cells are now available, originating from adult tissues but also from embryonic or reprogrammed tissues, most of which have already been evaluated for their chondrogenic potential in culture and for their reparative properties in vivo upon implantation in relevant animal models of cartilage lesions. Nevertheless, particular attention will be needed regarding their safe clinical use and their potential to form a cartilaginous repair tissue of proper quality and functionality in the patient. Possible improvements may reside in the use of biological supplements in accordance with regulations, while some challenges remain in establishing standardized, effective procedures in the clinics. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2 | 25% |
| United States | 1 | 13% |
| Italy | 1 | 13% |
| Canada | 1 | 13% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 1 | 13% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 38% |
| Scientists | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 244 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 234 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 43 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 35 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 33 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 30 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 18 | 7% |
| Other | 40 | 16% |
| Unknown | 45 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 62 | 25% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 47 | 19% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 20 | 8% |
| Engineering | 18 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 3% |
| Other | 33 | 14% |
| Unknown | 57 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 28 December 2021.
All research outputs
#3,257,967
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Stem cells and cloning advances and applications
#14
of 67 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,174
of 320,237 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem cells and cloning advances and applications
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 67 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 320,237 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them