| Title |
Promoting vascular repair in the retina: can stem/progenitor cells help?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Eye and Brain, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/eb.s94451 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thao Le Phuong Trinh, Sergio Li Calzi, Lynn C Shaw, Mervin C Yoder, Maria B Grant |
| Abstract |
Since its first epidemic in the 1940s, retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) has been a challenging illness in neonatology. Higher than physiological oxygen levels impede the development of the immature retinal neuropil and vasculature. Current treatment regimens include cryotherapy, laser photocoagulation, and anti-VEGF agents. Unfortunately, none of these approaches can rescue the normal retinal vasculature, and each has significant safety concerns. The limitations of these approaches have led to new efforts to understand the pathological characteristics in each phase of ROP and to find a safer and more effective therapeutic approach. In the era of stem cell biology and with the need for new treatments for ROP, this review discusses the possible future use of unique populations of proangiogenic cells for therapeutic revascularization of the preterm retina. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 23 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 22% |
| Other | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 17% |
| Researcher | 2 | 9% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 26% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 17% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 6 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 27 May 2016.
All research outputs
#17,562,823
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from Eye and Brain
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,506
of 312,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Eye and Brain
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,748,735 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.0. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 312,718 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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