| Title |
Body composition and bone mineral density in users of the etonogestrel-releasing contraceptive implant
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00404-015-3784-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Waleska Modesto, Natália Dal´Ava, Ilza Monteiro, Luis Bahamondes |
| Abstract |
There is scarce information about bone mineral density (BMD) and body composition (BC) among users of the etonogestrel (ENG)-releasing implant. To evaluate BC and BMD in ENG-releasing implant users as compared to copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD)-users. A prospective study was conducted on 75 users of both contraceptive methods. BMD was evaluated at femoral neck (FN) and lumbar spine (LS) (L1-L4) and BC at baseline and at 12 months after insertion. The mean (±SD) age was 30.4 ± 6.8 and 29.8 ± 8.4 years and body mass index (kg/m(2)) was 24.9 ± 4.1 and 24.6 ± 3.5 in ENG-releasing implant- and Cu-IUD-users, respectively. ENG-releasing implant users did not show significant differences on BMD at the LS and FN at 12 months of use. Furthermore, ENG-implant users had an increase in body weight at 12 months (p < 0.001) and an increase of 2 % in the percentage of body fat, when compared with Cu-IUD users. There was a significant increase in lean mass in ENG-implant users at 12 months (p = 0.020). No significant changes of BMD were seen after the first year of use among the ENG-releasing implant-users, albeit an increase of weight and fat mass was seen when compared to Cu-IUD users. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 56 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 13% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 5% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 20% |
| Unknown | 17 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 5% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 21 | 38% |
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 09 October 2023.
All research outputs
#2,377,455
of 24,586,986 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics
#104
of 2,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,599
of 269,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics
#3
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,586,986 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 2,230 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 269,554 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.