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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Gonadotropin therapy in assisted reproduction: an evolutionary perspective from biologics to biotech
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinics, April 2014
|
| DOI | 10.6061/clinics/2014(04)10 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rogério de Barros F Leão, Sandro C Esteves |
| Abstract |
Gonadotropin therapy plays an integral role in ovarian stimulation for infertility treatments. Efforts have been made over the last century to improve gonadotropin preparations. Undoubtedly, current gonadotropins have better quality and safety profiles as well as clinical efficacy than earlier ones. A major achievement has been introducing recombinant technology in the manufacturing processes for follicle-stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone, and human chorionic gonadotropin. Recombinant gonadotropins are purer than urine-derived gonadotropins, and incorporating vial filling by mass virtually eliminated batch-to-batch variations and enabled accurate dosing. Recombinant and fill-by-mass technologies have been the driving forces for launching of prefilled pen devices for more patient-friendly ovarian stimulation. The most recent developments include the fixed combination of follitropin alfa + lutropin alfa, long-acting FSH gonadotropin, and a new family of prefilled pen injector devices for administration of recombinant gonadotropins. The next step would be the production of orally bioactive molecules with selective follicle-stimulating hormone and luteinizing hormone activity. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 168 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 167 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 33 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 11% |
| Researcher | 12 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 5% |
| Other | 30 | 18% |
| Unknown | 44 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 43 | 26% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 27 | 16% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 26 | 15% |
| Chemistry | 4 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 16 | 10% |
| Unknown | 49 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 29 May 2024.
All research outputs
#7,328,939
of 25,713,737 outputs
Outputs from Clinics
#272
of 1,227 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,121
of 239,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinics
#9
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,713,737 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,227 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 239,939 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.