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.
Mendeley readers
| Title |
Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in subfertile patients who conceived following low technology interventions for fertility enhancement: a comprehensive review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00404-017-4572-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stefano Palomba, Susanna Santagni, Jessica Daolio, Karen Gibbins, Francesco Antonino Battaglia, Giovanni Battista La Sala, Robert M. Silver |
| Abstract |
Low technology interventions for fertility enhancement (LTIFE) are strategies that avoid retrieval, handling, and manipulation of female gametes. The definition of LTIFE is yet to be widely accepted and clarified, but they are commonly used in milder cases of infertility and subfertility. Based on these considerations, the aim of the present study was comprehensively to review and investigate the obstetric and perinatal outcomes in subfertile patients who underwent LTIFE. A literature search up to May 2017 was performed in IBSS, SocINDEX, Institute for Scientific Information, PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. An evidence-based hierarchy was used according to The Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine to determine which articles to include and analyze, and to provide a level of evidence of each association between intervention and outcome. This analysis identified preliminary and low-grade evidence on the influence of LTIFE on obstetric and perinatal outcomes in subfertile women. LTIFE women should deserve major consideration from Clinicians/Researchers of Reproductive Medicine, because these treatments could be potentially responsible for mothers' and babies' complications. So far, the lack of well-designed and unbiased studies makes further conclusions difficult to be drawn. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 14 | 54% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 27% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 8% |
| Psychology | 2 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 13 | 50% |