↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Regenerative nanomedicine: current perspectives and future directions

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Nanomedicine, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
66 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
168 Mendeley
Title
Regenerative nanomedicine: current perspectives and future directions
Published in
International Journal of Nanomedicine, September 2014
DOI 10.2147/ijn.s45332
Pubmed ID
Authors

Koel Chaudhury, Vishu Kumar, Jayaprakash Kandasamy, Sourav RoyChoudhury

Abstract

Nanotechnology has considerably accelerated the growth of regenerative medicine in recent years. Application of nanotechnology in regenerative medicine has revolutionized the designing of grafts and scaffolds which has resulted in new grafts/scaffold systems having significantly enhanced cellular and tissue regenerative properties. Since the cell-cell and cell-matrix interaction in biological systems takes place at the nanoscale level, the application of nanotechnology gives an edge in modifying the cellular function and/or matrix function in a more desired way to mimic the native tissue/organ. In this review, we focus on the nanotechnology-based recent advances and trends in regenerative medicine and discussed under individual organ systems including bone, cartilage, nerve, skin, teeth, myocardium, liver and eye. Recent studies that are related to the design of various types of nanostructured scaffolds and incorporation of nanomaterials into the matrices are reported. We have also documented reports where these materials and matrices have been compared for their better biocompatibility and efficacy in supporting the damaged tissue. In addition to the recent developments, future directions and possible challenges in translating the findings from bench to bedside are outlined.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 168 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 166 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 18%
Student > Master 28 17%
Student > Bachelor 24 14%
Researcher 15 9%
Other 11 7%
Other 27 16%
Unknown 32 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 22 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 10%
Materials Science 11 7%
Other 34 20%
Unknown 42 25%
Attention Score in Context

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 04 December 2015.
All research outputs
#7,959,659
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#940
of 4,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,383
of 248,664 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#25
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,123 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 248,664 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.