↓ Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness of hysteroscopy screening for infertile women

Overview of attention for article published in Reproductive BioMedicine Online, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Cost-effectiveness of hysteroscopy screening for infertile women
Published in
Reproductive BioMedicine Online, March 2013
DOI 10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.02.015
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jenneke C. Kasius, René J.C. Eijkemans, Ben W.J. Mol, Bart C.J.M. Fauser, Human M. Fatemi, Frank J.M. Broekmans

Abstract

This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of office hysteroscopy screening prior to IVF. Therefore, the cost-effectiveness of two distinct strategies - hysteroscopy after two failed IVF cycles (Failedhyst) and routine hysteroscopy prior to IVF (Routinehyst) - was compared with the reference strategy of no hysteroscopy (Nohyst). When present, intrauterine pathology was treated during hysteroscopy. Two models were constructed and evaluated in a decision analysis. In model I, all patients had an increase in pregnancy rate after screening hysteroscopy prior to IVF; in model II, only patients with intrauterine pathology would benefit. For each strategy, the total costs and live birth rates after a total of three IVF cycles were assessed. For model I (all patients benefit from hysteroscopy), Routinehyst was always cost-effective compared with Nohyst or Failedhyst. For the Routinehyst strategy, a monetary profit would be obtained in the case where hysteroscopy would increase the live birth rate after IVF by ≥ 2.8%. In model II (only patients with pathology benefit from hysteroscopy), Routinehyst also dominated Failedhyst. However, hysteroscopy performance resulted in considerable costs. In conclusion, the application of a routine hysteroscopy prior to IVF could be cost-effective. However, randomized trials confirming the effectiveness of hysteroscopy are needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 4%
Canada 1 4%
Unknown 23 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 16%
Researcher 4 16%
Professor 3 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Student > Master 2 8%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 6 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 52%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Unknown 8 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 04 January 2014.
All research outputs
#20,655,488
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive BioMedicine Online
#1,951
of 2,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,220
of 209,237 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive BioMedicine Online
#23
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 209,237 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.