↓ Skip to main content

The place of reconstructive tubal surgery in the era of assisted reproductive techniques

Overview of attention for article published in Reproductive BioMedicine Online, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
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.
Title
The place of reconstructive tubal surgery in the era of assisted reproductive techniques
Published in
Reproductive BioMedicine Online, September 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.rbmo.2015.09.010
Pubmed ID
Authors

Victor Gomel

Abstract

Assisted reproductive techniques yield high rates of success for women with tubal factor infertility. Because they are potentially effective for all categories of infertility, for two decades, clinical and basic research in infertility has been focused on IVF techniques and outcomes, rather than developing surgical techniques or training infertility subspecialists in tubal microsurgery. Nonetheless, in comparison with IVF, reconstructive tubal surgery is inexpensive and offers multiple opportunities to attempt conception. Performing laparoscopic salpingostomy prior to IVF in women with good prognosis tubal disease may improve the outcome of subsequent IVF, while offering the potential for spontaneous conception. Tubo-tubal anastomosis for reversal of tubal ligation, performed either by a microsurgical technique through a mini-laparotomy or by laparoscopy, is preferable to IVF in younger women with no other fertility factors, because it offers potentially higher cumulative pregnancy rates. Surgery is the only alternative for women with tubal factor infertility who for personal or other reasons are unable to undergo assisted reproductive techniques. Tubal reconstructive surgery and assisted reproductive techniques must be considered complementary forms of treatment for women with tubal factor infertility, and training in tubal reconstructive surgery should be an integral part of subspecialty training in reproductive endocrinology and infertility.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 2%
Unknown 54 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 18%
Student > Postgraduate 9 16%
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Researcher 3 5%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 13 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 53%
Engineering 5 9%
Computer Science 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 15 27%
Attention Score in Context

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 21 December 2015.
All research outputs
#16,720,137
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive BioMedicine Online
#1,592
of 2,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,548
of 285,672 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive BioMedicine Online
#23
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,421 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. 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 285,672 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.