↓ Skip to main content

Sperm DNA damage and its role in IVF and ICSI

Overview of attention for article published in Basic and Clinical Andrology, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 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
Sperm DNA damage and its role in IVF and ICSI
Published in
Basic and Clinical Andrology, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12610-016-0043-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Phil Vu Bach, Phil Vu Bach, Peter N. Schlegel

Abstract

While the semen analysis has traditionally been relied upon to differentiate fertile and infertile men, its utility has been questioned in the current era of assisted reproductive technologies. The desire for more sophisticated diagnostic and predictive tools has led to increased use of sperm DNA damage in the management of male infertility. Despite the availability of numerous assays to measure sperm DNA damage, our understanding of the etiology, measurement, and clinical implications of sperm DNA damage remains incomplete. While the current evidence is fraught with heterogeneity that complicates attempts at comparison and meta-analysis, there does appear to be a role for sperm DNA damage in the development and maintenance of pregnancy in the era of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). However, as noted by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the routine and widespread use of sperm DNA damage testing is not yet supported. Further studies are needed to standardize the measurement of sperm DNA damage and to clarify the exact role of sperm DNA damage within the myriad of other male and female factors contributing to reproductive outcomes in IVF and ICSI.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 2%
Unknown 60 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 11 18%
Student > Master 11 18%
Researcher 11 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Other 13 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 30%
Unspecified 14 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 13%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 3%
Other 7 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 20 December 2016.
All research outputs
#2,199,713
of 8,800,428 outputs
Outputs from Basic and Clinical Andrology
#13
of 41 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,552
of 300,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Basic and Clinical Andrology
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,800,428 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 41 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 49.7. This one scored the same or higher as 28 of them.
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 300,150 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.