↓ Skip to main content

Antioxidants for female subfertility

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
26 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
71 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
136 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
Antioxidants for female subfertility
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007807.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Showell MG, Brown J, Clarke J, Hart RJ, Showell, Marian G, Brown, Julie, Clarke, Jane, Hart, Roger J

Abstract

A couple may be considered to have fertility problems if they have been trying to conceive for over a year with no success. This difficulty with conception may affect up to a quarter of all couples planning a child. The reported prevalence of subfertility has increased significantly over the past twenty years. It is estimated that for 40% to 50% of couples, subfertility may be a result of female problems, including ovulatory disorders, poor egg quality, fallopian tube damage and endometriosis. Antioxidants are thought to reduce the oxidative stress brought on by these conditions. Currently, limited evidence suggests that antioxidants improve fertility, and trials have explored this area with varied results. This review assessed the evidence for the effectiveness of different antioxidants in female subfertility.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 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 136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 131 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 44 32%
Researcher 21 15%
Student > Bachelor 18 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 4%
Other 19 14%
Unknown 14 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 71 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 10%
Psychology 11 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 5%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 21 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 58. 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 23 June 2016.
All research outputs
#377,384
of 15,564,572 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#902
of 11,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,119
of 160,023 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9
of 130 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,564,572 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,217 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 160,023 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 130 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.