↓ Skip to main content

Growth hormone for in vitro fertilization

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 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
Growth hormone for in vitro fertilization
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2010
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000099.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

James MN Duffy, Gaity Ahmad, Lamiya Mohiyiddeen, Luciano G Nardo, Andrew Watson

Abstract

In an effort to improve outcomes of in-vitro fertilisation cycles the use of growth hormone has been considered. Improving the outcomes of in-vitro fertilisation is especially important for subfertile women who are considered 'poor responders'. To assess the effectiveness of adjuvant growth hormone in in-vitro fertilisation protocols. We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Groups trials register (June 2009), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2009), MEDLINE (1966 to June 2009), EMBASE (1988 to June 2009) and Biological Abstracts (1969 to June 2009). All randomised controlled trials were included if they addressed the research question and provided outcome data for intervention and control participants. Assessment of trial risk of bias and extraction of relevant data was performed independently by two reviewers. Ten studies (440 subfertile couples) were included. Results of the meta-analysis demonstrated no difference in outcome measures and adverse events in the routine use of adjuvant growth hormone in in-vitro fertilisation protocols. However, meta-analysis demonstrated a statistically significant difference in both live birth rates and pregnancy rates favouring the use of adjuvant growth hormone in in-vitro fertilisation protocols in women who are considered poor responders without increasing adverse events, OR 5.39, 95% CI 1.89 to 15.35 and OR 3.28, 95% CI 1.74 to 6.20 respectively. Although the use of growth hormone in poor responders has been found to show a significant improvement in live birth rates, we were unable to identify which sub-group of poor responders would benefit the most from adjuvant growth hormone. The result needs to be interpreted with caution, the included trials were few in number and small sample size. Therefore, before recommending growth hormone adjuvant in in-vitro fertilisation further research is necessary to fully define its role.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 4%
Spain 1 1%
Poland 1 1%
Unknown 69 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 15%
Unspecified 9 12%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Student > Master 9 12%
Other 7 9%
Other 29 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 51%
Unspecified 16 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Other 7 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 June 2017.
All research outputs
#7,860,057
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,628
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,568
of 235,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#121
of 140 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 235,873 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 140 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.