↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Growth hormone for in vitro fertilization

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
93 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 Mendeley
Title
Growth hormone for in vitro fertilization
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2010
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000099.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

James MN Duffy, Gaity Ahmad, Lamiya Mohiyiddeen, Luciano G Nardo, Andrew Watson

Abstract

In an effort to improve outcomes of in-vitro fertilisation cycles the use of growth hormone has been considered. Improving the outcomes of in-vitro fertilisation is especially important for subfertile women who are considered 'poor responders'. To assess the effectiveness of adjuvant growth hormone in in-vitro fertilisation protocols. We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Groups trials register (June 2009), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2009), MEDLINE (1966 to June 2009), EMBASE (1988 to June 2009) and Biological Abstracts (1969 to June 2009). All randomised controlled trials were included if they addressed the research question and provided outcome data for intervention and control participants. Assessment of trial risk of bias and extraction of relevant data was performed independently by two reviewers. Ten studies (440 subfertile couples) were included. Results of the meta-analysis demonstrated no difference in outcome measures and adverse events in the routine use of adjuvant growth hormone in in-vitro fertilisation protocols. However, meta-analysis demonstrated a statistically significant difference in both live birth rates and pregnancy rates favouring the use of adjuvant growth hormone in in-vitro fertilisation protocols in women who are considered poor responders without increasing adverse events, OR 5.39, 95% CI 1.89 to 15.35 and OR 3.28, 95% CI 1.74 to 6.20 respectively. Although the use of growth hormone in poor responders has been found to show a significant improvement in live birth rates, we were unable to identify which sub-group of poor responders would benefit the most from adjuvant growth hormone. The result needs to be interpreted with caution, the included trials were few in number and small sample size. Therefore, before recommending growth hormone adjuvant in in-vitro fertilisation further research is necessary to fully define its role.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 3%
Spain 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 99 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 13%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Student > Master 11 11%
Other 9 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 8%
Other 33 32%
Unknown 18 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 7%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Psychology 4 4%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 25 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 03 June 2017.
All research outputs
#4,867,151
of 17,363,630 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,353
of 11,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,978
of 244,980 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#105
of 156 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,363,630 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 244,980 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 156 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.