↓ Skip to main content

Assisted reproductive technology: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2018
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 (87th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
21 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
183 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
Assisted reproductive technology: an overview of Cochrane Reviews
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010537.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cindy Farquhar, Jane Marjoribanks

Abstract

As many as one in six couples will encounter problems with fertility, defined as failure to achieve a clinical pregnancy after regular intercourse for 12 months. Increasingly, couples are turning to assisted reproductive technology (ART) for help with conceiving and ultimately giving birth to a healthy live baby of their own. Fertility treatments are complex, and each ART cycle consists of several steps. If one of these steps is incorrectly applied, the stakes are high as conception may not occur. With this in mind, it is important that each step of the ART cycle is supported by good evidence from well-designed studies. To summarise the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews on procedures and treatment options available to couples with subfertility undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) procedures. Published Cochrane systematic reviews of couples undergoing ART procedures (in vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection) were eligible for inclusion in the overview. We also identified Cochrane reviews in preparation, for future inclusion.The primary outcome of the overview was live birth or the composite outcome live birth or ongoing pregnancy, as reported by the included reviews. Our secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, miscarriage, and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. We excluded studies of intrauterine insemination and ovulation induction.We undertook selection of systematic reviews, data extraction, and quality assessment in duplicate. We assessed review quality by using the AMSTAR tool. We organised reviews by their relevance to specific stages in the ART cycle. We summarised their findings in the text and reported data for each outcome in 'Additional tables'. We included 68 systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library up to May 2018. All were of high quality. These reviews identified 38 interventions that were effective (n = 23) or promising (n = 15), and they identified 19 interventions that were ineffective (n = 2) or possibly ineffective (n = 17). For 15 interventions, review authors were unable to draw conclusions owing to lack of evidence.We identified an additional 11 protocols and four titles for future inclusion in this overview. This overview provides the most up-to-date evidence on ART cycles from systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials. Fertility treatments are costly, and the stakes are high. Using the best available evidence to optimise outcomes is best practice. Evidence from this overview could be used to develop clinical practice guidelines and protocols that can be applied in daily clinical practice to improve live birth rates and reduce rates of multiple pregnancy, cycle cancellation, and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 183 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Ghana 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 178 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 43 23%
Researcher 28 15%
Student > Bachelor 25 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 9%
Other 13 7%
Other 58 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 101 55%
Unspecified 20 11%
Psychology 15 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 5%
Other 25 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 12 November 2018.
All research outputs
#875,788
of 12,487,503 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,488
of 8,727 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,009
of 274,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#72
of 166 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,487,503 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,727 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 274,062 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 166 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.