↓ Skip to main content

Uterine transplantation: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Clinics, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Uterine transplantation: a systematic review
Published in
Clinics, January 2016
DOI 10.6061/clinics/2016(11)10
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dani Ejzenberg, Luana Regina Baratelli Carelli Mendes, Luciana Bertocco de Paiva Haddad, Edmund Chada Baracat, Luiz Augusto Carneiro D'Albuquerque, Wellington Andraus

Abstract

Up to 15% of the reproductive population is infertile, and 3 to 5% of these cases are caused by uterine dysfunction. This abnormality generally leads women to consider surrogacy or adoption. Uterine transplantation, although still experimental, may be an option in these cases. This systematic review will outline the recommendations, surgical aspects, immunosuppressive drugs and reproductive aspects related to experimental uterine transplantation in women.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Master 4 11%
Other 3 9%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 11 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 34%
Arts and Humanities 3 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 12 34%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 07 August 2021.
All research outputs
#12,567,527
of 21,294,221 outputs
Outputs from Clinics
#387
of 826 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#139,298
of 285,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinics
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,294,221 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 826 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 285,209 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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