↓ Skip to main content

ICSI diagnostic: a way to prevent total fertilization failure after 4 unsuccessful IUI

Overview of attention for article published in Basic and Clinical Andrology, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 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
ICSI diagnostic: a way to prevent total fertilization failure after 4 unsuccessful IUI
Published in
Basic and Clinical Andrology, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12610-017-0061-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arnaud Larbuisson, Dominique Raick, Stephanie Demelenne, Annick Delvigne

Abstract

The aim of this retrospective study is to investigate the relevance of dividing oocytes and using some for traditional in vitro fertilization (IVF) and others for intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) as of the first IVF cycle in patients with unexplained infertility who have undergone 4 intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles which produced no pregnancies. This retrospective study includes patients with unexplained infertility who have failed to become pregnant, after 4 IUI, despite normal semen parameters after sperm capacitation. These women were treated in our assisted fertilization program from 2008 until 2015. We analysed the first cycles of women in whom more than 4 oocyte cumulus complexes (OCC) were retrieved and single embryo transfer was performed. Dividing oocytes between two fertilization techniques reduce the rate of total fertilization failure during the first IVF cycle. No statistical difference were observed for 2 pronuclei (PN) rate between the two techniques. On the other hand, we observed a significantly lower rate of 3 PN, 1 PN, 0 PN with ICSI in comparison with conventional fertilization. Splitting the oocytes between classical IVF and ICSI increases the chance of embryo transfer on a first IVF cycle after 4 unsuccessful IUI cycles. This half-and-half policy reduces the risk, for the infertile couple, of facing total failure of fertilization and also can provide useful information for the next attempts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 22%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 11%
Other 1 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 11%
Student > Bachelor 1 11%
Other 2 22%
Unknown 1 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 11%
Computer Science 1 11%
Unknown 3 33%
Attention Score in Context

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 02 November 2017.
All research outputs
#17,292,294
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Basic and Clinical Andrology
#78
of 161 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,900
of 325,640 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Basic and Clinical Andrology
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 161 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.5. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 325,640 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.