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.
| Title |
Natural cycle in vitro fertilisation (IVF) for subfertile couples
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd010550.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas Allersma, Cindy Farquhar, Astrid EP Cantineau |
| Abstract |
Subfertility affects 15% to 20% of couples trying to conceive. In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is one of the assisted reproduction techniques developed to improve chances of achieving pregnancy. In the standard IVF method with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH), growth and development of multiple follicles are stimulated by using gonadotrophins, often combined with a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist or antagonist. Although it is an established method of conception for subfertile couples, the treatment is expensive and has a high risk of adverse effects. Studies have shown that IVF in a natural cycle (NC) or a modified natural cycle (MNC) might be a promising low risk and low cost alternative to the standard stimulated IVF treatment since the available dominant follicle of each cycle is used. In this review, we included available randomised controlled studies comparing natural cycle IVF (NC and MNC) with standard IVF. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 222 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Russia | 1 | <1% |
| Slovenia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 219 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 43 | 19% |
| Researcher | 31 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 25 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 24 | 11% |
| Other | 10 | 5% |
| Other | 31 | 14% |
| Unknown | 58 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 80 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 8% |
| Psychology | 11 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 10 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 5% |
| Other | 28 | 13% |
| Unknown | 66 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 18 September 2016.
All research outputs
#7,181,534
of 26,106,397 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,579
of 13,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,217
of 213,445 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#156
of 229 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,106,397 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,186 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.4. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 213,445 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 229 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.