↓ Skip to main content

Preimplantation genetic screening for abnormal number of chromosomes (aneuploidies) in in vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
129 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
Preimplantation genetic screening for abnormal number of chromosomes (aneuploidies) in in vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2006
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005291.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Moniek Twisk, Sebastiaan Mastenbroek, Madelon van Wely, Maas Jan Heineman, Fulco Van der Veen, Sjoerd Repping

Abstract

In both in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), selection of the most competent embryo(s) for transfer is generally based on morphological criteria. However, many women fail to achieve a pregnancy after transfer of good quality embryos. One of the presumed causes is that such morphologically normal embryos show an abnormal number of chromosomes (aneuploidies). In preimplantation genetic screening (PGS), embryos are analysed for aneuploidies and only embryos that are euploid for the chromosomes tested are transferred. This technique has been suggested and used to improve pregnancy rates for the following indications: (i) advanced maternal age, (ii) repeated IVF failure, (iii) repeated miscarriage and (iv) testicular sperm extraction (TESE)-ICSI. Although PGS is used more and more often, its effectiveness is still unclear.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 123 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 19%
Student > Master 21 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 14%
Student > Bachelor 17 13%
Other 10 8%
Other 28 22%
Unknown 10 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 39%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 7%
Psychology 8 6%
Other 18 14%
Unknown 16 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 02 June 2016.
All research outputs
#7,799,241
of 14,668,766 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,439
of 11,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,022
of 150,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#70
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,668,766 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,037 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.5. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 150,512 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 101 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.