↓ Skip to main content

Culture media for human pre-implantation embryos in assisted reproductive technology cycles

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2015
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 (89th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 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
Culture media for human pre-implantation embryos in assisted reproductive technology cycles
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007876.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mohamed MA Youssef, Eleni Mantikou, Madelon van Wely, Fulco Van der Veen, Hesham G Al-Inany, Sjoerd Repping, Sebastiaan Mastenbroek

Abstract

Many media are commercially available for culturing pre-implantation human embryos in assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles. It is unknown which culture medium leads to the best success rates after ART. To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of different human pre-implantation embryo culture media in used for in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles. We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group's Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the National Research Register, the Medical Research Council's Clinical Trials Register and the NHS Center for Reviews and Dissemination databases from January 1985 to March 2015. We also examined the reference lists of all known primary studies, review articles, citation lists of relevant publications and abstracts of major scientific meetings. We included all randomised controlled trials which randomised women, oocytes or embryos and compared any two commercially available culture media for human pre-implantation embryos in an IVF or ICSI programme. Two review authors independently selected the studies, assessed their risk of bias and extracted data. We sought additional information from the authors if necessary. We assessed the quality of the evidence using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods. The primary review outcome was live birth or ongoing pregnancy. We included 32 studies in this review. Seventeen studies randomised women (total 3666), three randomised cycles (total 1018) and twelve randomised oocytes (over 15,230). It was not possible to pool any of the data because each study compared different culture media.Only seven studies reported live birth or ongoing pregnancy. Four of these studies found no evidence of a difference between the media compared, for either day three or day five embryo transfer. The data from the fifth study did not appear reliable.Six studies reported clinical pregnancy rate. One of these found a difference between the media compared, suggesting that for cleavage-stage embryo transfer, Quinn's Advantage was associated with higher clinical pregnancy rates than G5 (odds ratio (OR) 1.56; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12 to 2.16; 692 women). This study was available only as an abstract and the quality of the evidence was low.With regards to adverse effects, three studies reported multiple pregnancies and six studies reported miscarriage. None of them found any evidence of a difference between the culture media used. None of the studies reported on the health of offspring.Most studies (22/32) failed to report their source of funding and none described their methodology in adequate detail. The overall quality of the evidence was rated as very low for nearly all comparisons, the main limitations being imprecision and poor reporting of study methods. An optimal embryo culture medium is important for embryonic development and subsequently the success of IVF or ICSI treatment. There has been much controversy about the most appropriate embryo culture medium. Numerous studies have been performed, but no two studies compared the same culture media and none of them found any evidence of a difference between the culture media used. We conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of any specific culture medium. Properly designed and executed randomised trials are necessary.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 106 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 18%
Researcher 16 15%
Student > Bachelor 14 13%
Other 8 7%
Other 17 16%
Unknown 13 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 35%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 7%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Other 18 17%
Unknown 17 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 27 July 2018.
All research outputs
#1,349,544
of 14,547,163 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,780
of 10,992 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,096
of 361,131 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#108
of 217 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,547,163 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,992 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 361,131 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 217 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.