↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Aspirin for in vitro fertilisation

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
168 Mendeley
Title
Aspirin for in vitro fertilisation
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004832.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charalampos S Siristatidis, George Basios, Vasilios Pergialiotis, Paraskevi Vogiatzi

Abstract

Aspirin is used with the aim of optimising the chance of live birth in women undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART), despite inconsistent evidence of its efficacy and safety (in terms of intraoperative bleeding during oocyte retrieval and risk of miscarriage). The most appropriate time to commence aspirin therapy and the length of treatment required are also still to be determined. This is the second update of the review first published in 2007. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of aspirin in women undergoing ART. We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 4) in the Cochrane Library (searched 9 May 2016); the databases MEDLINE (1946 to 9 May 2016) and Embase (1974 to 9 May 2016); and trial registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search portal). We also examined the reference lists of all known primary studies and review articles, citation lists of relevant publications and abstracts of major scientific meetings, combined with the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group's search strategy. Randomised controlled trials on aspirin for women undergoing ART. Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and extracted the data. The primary review outcome was live birth. Secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, miscarriage, and other complications associated with IVF/ICSI or with pregnancy and birth. We combined data to calculate risk ratios (RRs) (for dichotomous data) and mean differences (MDs) (for continuous data) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods. The search identified 13 trials as eligible for inclusion in the review, including a total of 2653 participants with a mean age of 35 years. Ten studies used a dose of 100 mg and three used 80 mg of aspirin per day. In most of them, aspirin was commenced immediately at the start of down-regulation, while the duration of treatment varied widely. Eight studies provided a placebo for the control group.There was no evidence of a difference between the aspirin group and the group receiving no treatment or placebo in rates of live birth (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.15, 3 RCTs, n = 1053, I² = 15%, moderate-quality evidence). In addition, clinical pregnancy rates were also similar for the two groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.17, 10 RCTs, n = 2142, I² = 27%, moderate-quality evidence); sensitivity analysis, excluding studies at high risk of bias, did not change the effect estimate. There was no evidence of a difference between groups in terms of multiple pregnancy as confirmed by ultrasound (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.25, 2 RCTs, n = 656, I² = 0%, low-quality evidence), miscarriage (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.77, 5 RCTs, n = 1497, I² = 0%, low-quality evidence), ectopic pregnancy (RR 1.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 4.63, 3 RCTs, n = 1135, I² = 0%, very low quality evidence) or vaginal bleeding (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.14 to 7.13, 1 RCT, n = 487, very low quality evidence). Data were lacking on other adverse effects.The overall quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate; limitations were poor reporting of study methods and suspected publication bias. Currently there is no evidence in favour of routine use of aspirin in order to improve pregnancy rates for a general IVF population. This is based on available data from randomised controlled trials, where there is currently no evidence of an effect of aspirin on women undergoing ART, as there is no single outcome measure demonstrating a benefit with its use. Furthermore, current evidence does not exclude the possibility of adverse effects.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 168 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 167 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 13%
Student > Master 19 11%
Student > Bachelor 19 11%
Researcher 18 11%
Other 9 5%
Other 23 14%
Unknown 59 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 10%
Unspecified 7 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 4%
Other 22 13%
Unknown 64 38%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 24 April 2018.
All research outputs
#4,026,278
of 19,918,818 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,619
of 11,996 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,931
of 311,603 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#98
of 164 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,918,818 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,996 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.8. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 311,603 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 164 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.