↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Brief co‐incubation of sperm and oocytes for in vitro fertilization techniques

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 Mendeley
Title
Brief co‐incubation of sperm and oocytes for in vitro fertilization techniques
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009391.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhongying Huang, Jun Li, Li Wang, Jing Yan, Yijiang Shi, Shangwei Li

Abstract

The in vitro fertilization (IVF) technique is commonly used and is the only treatment option for a proportion of infertile couples. To obtain better outcomes of IVF, it is important to enhance embryo quality by optimizing IVF techniques. In IVF procedures, oocytes and sperm are routinely co-incubated overnight, which may expose oocytes and zygotes to suboptimal culture conditions with increased reactive oxygen species (ROS) produced by sperm in this long term culture. As an attempt to avoid possible detrimental effects on the oocytes from long exposure to sperm, the brief co-incubation insemination protocol was developed. However, despite a number of studies in this area, it is unclear whether brief co-incubation improves the IVF outcomes compared with the standard overnight insemination protocol.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 126 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 13%
Researcher 14 11%
Student > Bachelor 13 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Other 6 5%
Other 24 19%
Unknown 43 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 35%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 42 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 28 November 2016.
All research outputs
#14,736,622
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,690
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,876
of 204,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#213
of 265 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 204,681 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 265 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.