↓ Skip to main content

Regular (ICSI) versus ultra‐high magnification (IMSI) sperm selection for assisted reproduction

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2013
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
97 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 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
Regular (ICSI) versus ultra‐high magnification (IMSI) sperm selection for assisted reproduction
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010167.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Danielle M Teixeira, Mariana AP Barbosa, Rui A Ferriani, Paula A Navarro, Nick Raine‐Fenning, Carolina O Nastri, Wellington P Martins

Abstract

Subfertility is a condition found in up to 15% of couples of reproductive age. Gamete micromanipulation, such as intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), is very useful for treating couples with compromised sperm parameters. Recently a new method of sperm selection named 'motile sperm organelle morphology examination' (MSOME) has been described and the spermatozoa selected under high magnification (over 6000x) used for ICSI. This new technique, named intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection (IMSI), has a theoretical potential to improve reproductive outcomes among couples undergoing assisted reproduction techniques (ART).

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 2%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 106 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 20%
Researcher 15 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 13%
Student > Bachelor 12 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 23 21%
Unknown 17 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 7%
Psychology 5 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 25 23%
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 18 October 2019.
All research outputs
#16,874,917
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#11,474
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,700
of 210,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#212
of 252 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 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 13,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 210,400 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 252 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.