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 |
Should IVF be used as first-line treatment or as a last resort? A debate presented at the 2013 Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society meeting
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Reproductive BioMedicine Online, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.10.004 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lina N. Huang, Justin Tan, Jason Hitkari, Michael H. Dahan |
| Abstract |
Infertility outcomes can be influenced by many factors. Although a number of treatments are offered, deciding which one to use first is a controversial topic. Although IVF may have superior efficacy in achieving a live birth with a reasonable safety profile, the availability of cheaper and less invasive treatments preclude its absolute use. For this reason, certain patient groups with 'good-prognosis' infertility are traditionally treated with less invasive treatments first. 'Good-prognosis' infertility may include unexplained infertility, mild male factor infertility, stage I or II endometriosis, unilateral tubal blockage and diminished ovarian reserve. Here, evidence behind the use of IVF as a first-line treatment is compared with its use as a last-resort option in women with 'good-prognosis' infertility. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 3 | 38% |
| Cayman Islands | 1 | 13% |
| United States | 1 | 13% |
| India | 1 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 13% |
| Spain | 1 | 13% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 63% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
| Scientists | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 70 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 20% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 13% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Researcher | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 16% |
| Unknown | 16 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 41% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 11% |
| Unknown | 18 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 12 January 2016.
All research outputs
#6,753,656
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive BioMedicine Online
#670
of 2,422 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,577
of 268,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive BioMedicine Online
#8
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,422 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 268,209 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 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 68% of its contemporaries.