↓ Skip to main content

Perspectives of infertile men on future stem cell treatments for nonobstructive azoospermia

Overview of attention for article published in Reproductive BioMedicine Online, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
Perspectives of infertile men on future stem cell treatments for nonobstructive azoospermia
Published in
Reproductive BioMedicine Online, January 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.01.011
Pubmed ID
Authors

S. Hendriks, E.A.F. Dancet, A. Meissner, F. van der Veen, M.H. Mochtar, S. Repping

Abstract

Concerns have been expressed about the rapid introduction of new fertility treatments into clinical practice. Patients' perspectives on new treatments and their introduction into clinical practice are unexplored. Two alternative treatments for testicular sperm extraction followed by intracytoplasmic sperm injection in men with nonobstructive azoospermia (NOA), the formation of artificial sperm and autotransplantation of in vitro proliferated spermatogonial stem cells, are in a preclinical phase of development. This study aimed to explore, prior to future clinical introduction, which treatment aspects are valued by NOA patients and would be taken into account in deciding to undergo these future treatment options. In-depth telephone interviews were conducted with 14 men with NOA. Interviews were transcribed, analysed with content analysis and data saturation was reached. Besides the obvious factors, success rates and safety, patients valued 'the intensity of the procedure', 'the treatments' resemblance to natural conception' and 'feeling cured'. Patients supported the development of these treatments and were eager to take part if such treatments would become available in the future. The patient's perspective on innovative treatments can (co)direct reproductive research. More research into the patients' perspectives on innovations and minimal thresholds to be met prior to their introduction into clinical practice is required.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 52 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 17%
Student > Bachelor 9 17%
Student > Master 7 13%
Other 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Other 11 21%
Unknown 7 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 19%
Psychology 4 8%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 10 19%
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 17 February 2014.
All research outputs
#16,047,334
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive BioMedicine Online
#1,452
of 2,422 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,764
of 322,361 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive BioMedicine Online
#15
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 322,361 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.