| Title |
Stem cell technology for tendon regeneration: current status, challenges, and future research directions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Stem cells and cloning advances and applications, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/sccaa.s60832 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Pauline Po Yee Lui |
| Abstract |
Tendon injuries are a common cause of physical disability. They present a clinical challenge to orthopedic surgeons because injured tendons respond poorly to current treatments without tissue regeneration and the time required for rehabilitation is long. New treatment options are required. Stem cell-based therapies offer great potential to promote tendon regeneration due to their high proliferative, synthetic, and immunomodulatory activities as well as their potential to differentiate to the target cell types and undergo genetic modification. In this review, I first recapped the challenges of tendon repair by reviewing the anatomy of tendon. Next, I discussed the advantages and limitations of using different types of stem cells compared to terminally differentiated cells for tendon tissue engineering. The safety and efficacy of application of stem cells and their modified counterparts for tendon tissue engineering were then summarized after a systematic literature search in PubMed. The challenges and future research directions to enhance, optimize, and standardize stem cell-based therapies for augmenting tendon repair were then discussed. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 157 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 25 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 24 | 15% |
| Researcher | 19 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 18 | 11% |
| Other | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 21 | 13% |
| Unknown | 42 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 22% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 21 | 13% |
| Engineering | 17 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 6% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 22 | 14% |
| Unknown | 46 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 16 December 2017.
All research outputs
#2,529,557
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Stem cells and cloning advances and applications
#11
of 69 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,547
of 395,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem cells and cloning advances and applications
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 69 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 395,397 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them