↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Pentoxifylline and electromagnetic field improved bone fracture healing in rats

Overview of attention for article published in Drug Design, Development and Therapy, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
Title
Pentoxifylline and electromagnetic field improved bone fracture healing in rats
Published in
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, September 2015
DOI 10.2147/dddt.s89669
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yusuf Atalay, Nedim Gunes, Mehmet Dervis Guner, Veysi Akpolat, Mustafa Salih Celik, Rezzan Guner

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of a phosphodiesterase inhibitor pentoxifylline (PTX), electromagnetic fields (EMFs), and a mixture of both materials on bone fracture healing in a rat model. Eighty male Wistar rats were randomly divided into four groups: Group A, femur fracture model with no treatment; Group B, femur fracture model treated with PTX 50 mg/kg/day intraperitoneal injection; Group C, femur fracture model treated with EMF 1.5±0.2 Mt/50 Hz/6 hours/day; and Group D, femur fracture model treated with PTX 50 mg/kg/day intraperitoneal injection and EMF 1.5±0.2 Mt/50 Hz/6 hours/day. Bone fracture healing was significantly better in Group B and Group C compared to Group A (P<0.05), but Group D did not show better bone fracture healing than Group A (P>0.05). It can be concluded that both a specific EMF and PTX had a positive effect on bone fracture healing but when used in combination, may not be beneficial.

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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 19%
Professor 3 10%
Researcher 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 6%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 10 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Materials Science 2 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 11 35%
Attention Score in Context

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 14 September 2015.
All research outputs
#16,722,190
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#1,011
of 2,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,817
of 276,791 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#59
of 133 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 276,791 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 133 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 52% of its contemporaries.