↓ Skip to main content

Differences in the utilization of gestational surrogacy between states in the U.S.

Overview of attention for article published in Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#31 of 123)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
31 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.
Article details
Title
Differences in the utilization of gestational surrogacy between states in the U.S.
Published in
Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online, September 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.rbms.2017.08.002
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Gestational surrogacy policy in the USA varies by state, but information on state differences is lacking. This study used data from the National Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance System from 2010 to 2014 to calculate state differences in gestational carrier cycle characteristics. Of the 662,165 in-vitro fertilization cycles in the USA between 2010 and 2014, 16,148 (2.4%) used gestational carriers. Non-USA residents accounted for 18.3% of gestational carrier cycles, and 29.1% of gestational carrier cycles by USA residents were performed in a state other than the state of residence of the intended parent. USA gestational surrogacy practice varies by state, potentially impacting patients' access to surrogacy services.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 19%
Student > Master 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 6%
Researcher 2 6%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 13 42%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 26%
Arts and Humanities 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Mathematics 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 15 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 28 November 2018.
All research outputs
#1,622,401
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online
#31
of 123 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,778
of 328,838 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 123 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
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 328,838 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them