| Title |
Nanomedicine strategies for treatment of secondary spinal cord injury
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Nanomedicine, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijn.s75686 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Désirée White-Schenk, Riyi Shi, James F Leary |
| Abstract |
Neurological injury, such as spinal cord injury, has a secondary injury associated with it. The secondary injury results from the biological cascade after the primary injury and affects previous uninjured, healthy tissue. Therefore, the mitigation of such a cascade would benefit patients suffering a primary injury and allow the body to recover more quickly. Unfortunately, the delivery of effective therapeutics is quite limited. Due to the inefficient delivery of therapeutic drugs, nanoparticles have become a major field of exploration for medical applications. Based on their material properties, they can help treat disease by delivering drugs to specific tissues, enhancing detection methods, or a mixture of both. Incorporating nanomedicine into the treatment of neuronal injury and disease would likely push nanomedicine into a new light. This review highlights the various pathological issues involved in secondary spinal cord injury, current treatment options, and the improvements that could be made using a nanomedical approach. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 50 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 25% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 17% |
| Researcher | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Unknown | 11 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 13% |
| Engineering | 6 | 12% |
| Chemistry | 4 | 8% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 11 | 21% |
| Unknown | 12 | 23% |
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 18 February 2015.
All research outputs
#14,782,490
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#1,572
of 4,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,295
of 359,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#41
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,121 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 359,525 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.