↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Cell-based therapies for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/motor neuron disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
Title
Cell-based therapies for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/motor neuron disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011742.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

S Fadilah Abdul Wahid, Zhe Kang Law, Nor Azimah Ismail, Raymond Azman Ali, Nai Ming Lai

Abstract

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), which is also known as motor neuron disease (MND) is a fatal disease associated with rapidly progressive disability, for which no definitive treatment as yet exists. Current treatment regimens largely focus on relieving symptoms to improve the quality of life of those affected. Based on data from preclinical studies, cell-based therapy is a promising treatment for ALS/MND. To assess the effects of cell-based therapy for people with ALS/MND, compared with placebo or no additional treatment. On 21 June 2016, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched two clinical trials' registries for ongoing or unpublished studies. We planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and cluster RCTs that assigned people with ALS/MND to receive cell-based therapy versus a placebo or no additional treatment. Co-interventions were allowable, provided that they were given to each group equally. We followed standard Cochrane methodology. No studies were eligible for inclusion in the review. We identified four ongoing trials. Currently, there is a lack of high-quality evidence to guide practice on the use of cell-based therapy to treat ALS/MND.We need large, prospective RCTs to establish the efficacy of cellular therapy and to determine patient-, disease- and cell treatment-related factors that may influence the outcome of cell-based therapy. The major goals of future research should be to determine the appropriate cell source, phenotype, dose, and route of delivery, as these will be key elements in designing an optimal cell-based therapy programme for people with ALS/MND. Future research should also explore novel treatment strategies, including combinations of cellular therapy and standard or novel neuroprotective agents, to find the best possible approach to prevent or reverse the neurological deficit in ALS/MND, and to prolong survival in this debilitating and fatal condition.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 25%
Student > Bachelor 11 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 13%
Researcher 8 10%
Other 4 5%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 16 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 38%
Neuroscience 9 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 18 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. 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 31 August 2019.
All research outputs
#625,133
of 17,362,547 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,573
of 11,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,913
of 300,216 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#28
of 169 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,362,547 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 300,216 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 169 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.