↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Paclitaxel reduces formation of hypertrophic scars in the rabbit ear model

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
6 Mendeley
Title
Paclitaxel reduces formation of hypertrophic scars in the rabbit ear model
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, July 2015
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s82961
Pubmed ID
Authors

Li-ping Huang, Zi-shan Jia, Jing-wen Chen, Gang Wang, Xing-lin Wang, Guoqi Wang

Abstract

The onset and progression of pathological scarring involves multiple cytokines and complex mechanisms. However, hyperplasia of fibroblasts and neovascularization plays important roles, which can be inhibited by paclitaxel. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of paclitaxel in the treatment of hypertrophic scars on rabbit ears. Rabbit ear models of hypertrophic scars were established to observe the therapeutic effects of paclitaxel at different concentrations (12 mg/L, 24 mg/L, 48 mg/L, 96 mg/L, 18 mg/L, 54 mg/L, 162 mg/L, 486 mg/L, 30 mg/L, 150 mg/L, 750 mg/L, 3,750 mg/L). The outcome measures included hypertrophic index (HI), density of fibroblasts, density of collagenous fibers, and microvessel density. In comparison with the control group, the concentrations of 96 mg/L, 150 mg/L, and 162 mg/L significantly reduce the formation of hypertrophic scars in the rabbit ear models. However, local necrosis was found in the rabbit ear models treated with paclitaxel solution >400 mg/L. Paclitaxel has strong inhibitory effects on the hyperplasia of fibroblasts, deposition of collagen, and microangiogenesis in hypertrophic scars on rabbit ears within the concentration range from 48 mg/L to 162 mg/L, without causing local necrosis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 6 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 2 33%
Student > Postgraduate 2 33%
Student > Bachelor 1 17%
Unknown 1 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 67%
Neuroscience 1 17%
Unknown 1 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 29 July 2015.
All research outputs
#7,528,733
of 12,485,238 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#531
of 922 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,181
of 235,480 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#35
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,485,238 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 922 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 235,480 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.