↓ Skip to main content

Article

Overview of attention for article published in Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology, January 2005
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
Published in
Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology, January 2005
DOI 10.1186/1477-7827-3-52
Pubmed ID
Authors

Prue Talbot, Karen Riveles

Abstract

The oviduct is an exquisitely designed organ that functions in picking-up ovulated oocytes, transporting gametes in opposite directions to the site of fertilization, providing a suitable environment for fertilization and early development, and transporting preimplantation embryos to the uterus. A variety of biological processes can be studied in oviducts making them an excellent model for toxicological studies. This review considers the role of the oviduct in oocyte pick-up and embryo transport and the evidence that chemicals in both mainstream and sidestream cigarette smoke impair these oviductal functions. Epidemiological data have repeatedly shown that women who smoke are at increased risk for a variety of reproductive problems, including ectopic pregnancy, delay to conception, and infertility. In vivo and in vitro studies indicate the oviduct is targeted by smoke components in a manner that could explain some of the epidemiological data. Comparisons between the toxicity of smoke from different types of cigarettes, including harm reduction cigarettes, are discussed, and the chemicals in smoke that impair oviductal functioning are reviewed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 53 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 24%
Researcher 11 20%
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Other 9 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 29%
Unspecified 5 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 4%
Other 11 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 December 2018.
All research outputs
#1,907,435
of 13,116,247 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology
#85
of 531 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,770
of 162,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,116,247 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 531 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 162,037 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them