↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Challenges for heart disease stem cell therapy

Overview of attention for article published in Vascular Health and Risk Management, March 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
Title
Challenges for heart disease stem cell therapy
Published in
Vascular Health and Risk Management, March 2012
DOI 10.2147/vhrm.s25665
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jane Hoover-Plow, Y Gong

Abstract

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are the leading cause of death worldwide. The use of stem cells to improve recovery of the injured heart after myocardial infarction (MI) is an important emerging therapeutic strategy. However, recent reviews of clinical trials of stem cell therapy for MI and ischemic heart disease recovery report that less than half of the trials found only small improvements in cardiac function. In clinical trials, bone marrow, peripheral blood, or umbilical cord blood cells were used as the source of stem cells delivered by intracoronary infusion. Some trials administered only a stem cell mobilizing agent that recruits endogenous sources of stem cells. Important challenges to improve the effectiveness of stem cell therapy for CVD include: (1) improved identification, recruitment, and expansion of autologous stem cells; (2) identification of mobilizing and homing agents that increase recruitment; and (3) development of strategies to improve stem cell survival and engraftment of both endogenous and exogenous sources of stem cells. This review is an overview of stem cell therapy for CVD and discusses the challenges these three areas present for maximum optimization of the efficacy of stem cell therapy for heart disease, and new strategies in progress.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Peru 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Greece 1 1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 69 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 27%
Student > Bachelor 17 22%
Student > Master 11 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 6%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 6 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 33 42%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 10%
Engineering 5 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 3%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 5 6%

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 29 February 2012.
All research outputs
#2,748,148
of 3,627,464 outputs
Outputs from Vascular Health and Risk Management
#222
of 265 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,069
of 72,128 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Vascular Health and Risk Management
#13
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 3,627,464 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 265 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 72,128 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.