↓ Skip to main content

Advances in Nanotechnology for the Treatment of Osteoporosis

Overview of attention for article published in Current Osteoporosis Reports, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
85 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
Title
Advances in Nanotechnology for the Treatment of Osteoporosis
Published in
Current Osteoporosis Reports, April 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11914-016-0306-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mikayla Barry, Hannah Pearce, Lauren Cross, Marco Tatullo, Akhilesh K. Gaharwar

Abstract

Osteoporosis is a degenerative bone disease commonly related to aging. With an increase in life expectancies worldwide, the prevalence of the disease is expected to rise. Current clinical therapeutic treatments are not able to offer long-term solutions to counter the bone mass loss and the increased risk of fractures, which are the primary characteristics of the disease. However, the combination of bioactive nanomaterials within a biomaterial scaffold shows promise for the development of a localized, long-term treatment for those affected by osteoporosis. This review summarizes the unique characteristics of engineered nanoparticles that render them applicable for bone regeneration and recaps the current body of knowledge on nanomaterials with potential for osteoporosis treatment and bone regeneration. Specifically, we highlight new developments that are shaping this emerging field and evaluate applications of recently developed nanomaterials for osteoporosis treatment. Finally, we will identify promising new research directions in nanotechnology for bone regeneration.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 112 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 15%
Student > Bachelor 16 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 10%
Professor 5 4%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 32 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 15 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 12%
Chemistry 8 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 6%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 38 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 06 February 2023.
All research outputs
#4,219,369
of 23,299,593 outputs
Outputs from Current Osteoporosis Reports
#80
of 559 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,554
of 302,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Osteoporosis Reports
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,299,593 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 559 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 302,006 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.