↓ Skip to main content

New national outcome data on fresh versus cryopreserved donor oocytes

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Ovarian Research, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#20 of 600)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
New national outcome data on fresh versus cryopreserved donor oocytes
Published in
Journal of Ovarian Research, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13048-017-0378-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vitaly A. Kushnir, Sarah K. Darmon, David H. Barad, Norbert Gleicher

Abstract

Improvements in oocyte cryopreservation techniques and establishment of cryopreserved donor oocyte banks have led to improved access to and lower cost of donor oocytes, upending the traditional practice of fresh oocyte donation. The objective of this study was to examine national trends in utilization and live birth rates with fresh versus cryopreserved donor oocytes. A retrospective analysis of 2013 through 2015 aggregate U.S. national data reported by the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology which included 30,160 IVF cycles with either fresh or cryopreserved donor oocytes was performed. During the study period utilization of fresh oocyte donations rapidly declined by 32.9%, while cryopreserved oocyte donation increased by 44.4%. Fresh donor oocytes produced significantly higher live birth rates per recipient cycle start than cryopreserved donor oocytes (51.1% vs. 39.7%). Over the three-year study period fresh donor oocytes produced stable live birth rates per recipient cycle start while those with cryopreserved oocytes significantly declined year-by-year. Despite rising popularity of cryopreserved donor oocytes, prospective patients should be counselled that fresh donor oocytes still represent standard of care due to higher live birth rates.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Master 5 9%
Other 3 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 6%
Other 11 21%
Unknown 17 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 20 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 05 June 2020.
All research outputs
#1,569,458
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Ovarian Research
#20
of 600 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,929
of 441,879 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Ovarian Research
#1
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 600 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 441,879 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 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