| Title |
Therapy of an incomplete spinal cord injury by intrathecal injection of EPO and subcutaneous injection of EPO, vitamin C and G-CSF
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s130627 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Augustinus Bader, Martin Reinhardt, Achim Beuthe, Klaus Röhl, Shibashish Giri |
| Abstract |
Spinal cord injury is a rare disease with an incidence about 40 cases per million population in the USA. The most common reasons are traffic accidents, falls, violence and sports. A 53-year-old male patient presented with an incomplete tetraparesis as a result of a spinal cord injury after the accident. It was not possible to treat him with steroids because he was out of the therapeutic time period of 8 hours when he presented to the hospital. The main problem of spinal cord injuries is the secondary injury caused by inflammation and swelling of the spinal cord. To avoid this, the patient was experimentally treated with erythropoietin (EPO) intrathecal and EPO, granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor and vitamin C subcutaneous after his initial spinal cord relief surgery. These drugs might be able to relieve this secondary reaction but were never applied for this indication in human before. This study shows that it could be a promising treatment for spinal cord injuries with potential therapeutic benefits. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 2 | 40% |
| United States | 2 | 40% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 34 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 24% |
| Researcher | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Unknown | 11 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 24% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 9% |
| Psychology | 2 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Unknown | 12 | 35% |
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 13 February 2018.
All research outputs
#14,541,990
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#605
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,578
of 340,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#5
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 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 53% 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 340,752 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.