↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy and safety of regenerative cell therapy for pulmonary arterial hypertension in animal models: a preclinical systematic review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

3 tweeters


8 Dimensions

Readers on

30 Mendeley
Efficacy and safety of regenerative cell therapy for pulmonary arterial hypertension in animal models: a preclinical systematic review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0265-x
Pubmed ID

Colin M. Suen, Alex Zhai, Manoj M. Lalu, Christopher Welsh, Brendan M. Levac, Dean Fergusson, Lauralyn McIntyre, Duncan J. Stewart, Suen, Colin M, Zhai, Alex, Lalu, Manoj M, Welsh, Christopher, Levac, Brendan M, Fergusson, Dean, McIntyre, Lauralyn, Stewart, Duncan J


Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a rare disease (15 cases per million) that is characterized by widespread loss of the pulmonary microcirculation and elevated pulmonary vascular resistance leading to pathological right ventricular remodeling and ultimately right heart failure. Regenerative cell therapies (i.e., therapies involving cells with stem or progenitor-like properties) could potentially restore the effective lung microcirculation and provide a curative therapy for PAH. Preclinical evidence suggests that regenerative cell therapy using endothelial progenitor cells or mesenchymal stem cells may be beneficial in the treatment of PAH. These findings have led to the completion of a small number of human clinical trials, albeit with modest effect compared to animal studies. The objective of this systematic review is to compare the efficacy and safety of regenerative cell therapies in preclinical models of PAH as well as assess study quality to inform future clinical studies. We will include preclinical studies of PAH in which a regenerative cell type was administered and outcomes compared to a disease control. The primary outcome will be pulmonary hemodynamics as assessed by measurement of right ventricular systolic pressure and/or mean pulmonary arterial pressure. Secondary outcomes will include mortality, survival, right ventricular remodeling, pulmonary vascular resistance, cardiac output, cardiac index, pulmonary acceleration time, tricuspid annular systolic excursion, and right ventricular wall thickness. Electronic searches of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases will be constructed and reviewed by the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) process. Search results will be screened independently in duplicate. Data from eligible studies will be extracted, pooled, and analyzed using random effects models. Risk of bias will be assessed using the SYstematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation (SYRCLE) risk of bias tool, and individual study reporting will be assessed according to an itemized checklist based on the Animal Research: Reporting of In vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines. This systematic review will examine the efficacy and safety of regenerative cell therapy in preclinical models of PAH. As well, the literature will be assessed for study quality and risk of bias. The results will guide the design of future clinical trials and preclinical animal studies. CAMARADES ( http://www.dcn.ed.ac.uk/camarades/SyRF/Protocols.htm ).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 20%
Researcher 6 20%
Student > Master 5 17%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 13%
Other 5 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 20%
Unspecified 4 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 13%
Engineering 3 10%
Other 3 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 24 June 2016.
All research outputs
of 7,940,332 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
of 628 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 270,146 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,940,332 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 51st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 628 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 270,146 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.