The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Blood-Contacting Biomaterials: In Vitro Evaluation of the Hemocompatibility
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fbioe.2018.00099 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marbod Weber, Heidrun Steinle, Sonia Golombek, Ludmilla Hann, Christian Schlensak, Hans P. Wendel, Meltem Avci-Adali |
| Abstract |
Hemocompatibility of blood-contacting biomaterials is one of the most important criteria for their successful in vivo applicability. Thus, extensive in vitro analyses according to ISO 10993-4 are required prior to clinical applications. In this review, we summarize essential aspects regarding the evaluation of the hemocompatibility of biomaterials and the required in vitro analyses for determining the blood compatibility. Static, agitated, or shear flow models are used to perform hemocompatibility studies. Before and after the incubation of the test material with fresh human blood, hemolysis, cell counts, and the activation of platelets, leukocytes, coagulation and complement system are analyzed. Furthermore, the surface of biomaterials are evaluated concerning attachment of blood cells, adsorption of proteins, and generation of thrombus and fibrin networks. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 2 | 11% |
| Spain | 1 | 6% |
| Algeria | 1 | 6% |
| Finland | 1 | 6% |
| Kenya | 1 | 6% |
| Indonesia | 1 | 6% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 6% |
| United States | 1 | 6% |
| Myanmar | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 7 | 39% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 67% |
| Scientists | 4 | 22% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 601 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 601 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 89 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 69 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 61 | 10% |
| Researcher | 54 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 34 | 6% |
| Other | 57 | 9% |
| Unknown | 237 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 76 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 53 | 9% |
| Materials Science | 47 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 6% |
| Chemistry | 32 | 5% |
| Other | 95 | 16% |
| Unknown | 264 | 44% |
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 2021.
All research outputs
#2,156,063
of 22,699,621 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#246
of 6,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,124
of 325,586 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#12
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,699,621 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 6,484 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 325,586 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.