↓ Skip to main content

Low-level laser therapy in IL-1β, COX-2, and PGE2 modulation in partially injured Achilles tendon

Overview of attention for article published in Lasers in Medical Science, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
Low-level laser therapy in IL-1β, COX-2, and PGE2 modulation in partially injured Achilles tendon
Published in
Lasers in Medical Science, July 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10103-014-1636-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julio Fernandes de Jesus, Diva Denelle Spadacci-Morena, Nayra Deise dos Anjos Rabelo, Carlos Eduardo Pinfildi, Thiago Yukio Fukuda, Helio Plapler

Abstract

This study evaluated IL-1β, COX-2, and PGE2 modulation in partially injured Achilles tendons treated with low-level laser therapy (LLLT). Sixty-five male Wistar rats were used. Sixty were submitted to a direct injury on Achilles tendon and then distributed into six groups: LASER 1 (a single LLLT application), LASER 3 (three LLLT applications), and LASER 7 (seven LLLT applications) and Sham 1, 3, and 7 (the same injury but LLLT applications were simulated). The five remaining animals were allocated at control group (no procedure performed). LLLT (780 nm) was applied with 70 mW of mean power and 17.5 J/cm(2) of fluency for 10 s, once a day. The tendons were surgically removed and assessed immunohistochemically for IL-1β, COX-2, and PGE2. In comparisons with control (IL-1β: 100.5 ± 92.5 / COX-2: 180.1 ± 97.1 / PGE2: 187.8 ± 128.8) IL-1β exhibited (mean ± SD) near-normal level (p > 0.05) at LASER 3 (142.0 ± 162.4). COX-2 and PGE2 exhibited near-normal levels (p > 0.05) at LASER 3 (COX-2: 176.9 ± 75.4 / PGE2: 297.2 ± 259.6) and LASER 7 (COX-2: 259.2 ± 190.4 / PGE2: 587.1 ± 409.7). LLLT decreased Achilles tendon's inflammatory process.

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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 19%
Student > Master 4 15%
Unspecified 3 11%
Other 3 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 11%
Other 9 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 37%
Unspecified 6 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 19%
Engineering 2 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Other 3 11%

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 14 September 2016.
All research outputs
#9,378,096
of 12,222,940 outputs
Outputs from Lasers in Medical Science
#533
of 857 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,469
of 201,708 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lasers in Medical Science
#12
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,222,940 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 857 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.4. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 201,708 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.