↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Assisted reproductive technology: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2018
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 (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 news outlet
24 tweeters
2 Facebook pages
12 Wikipedia pages


37 Dimensions

Readers on

254 Mendeley
Assisted reproductive technology: an overview of Cochrane Reviews
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010537.pub5
Pubmed ID

Cindy Farquhar, Jane Marjoribanks


As many as one in six couples will encounter problems with fertility, defined as failure to achieve a clinical pregnancy after regular intercourse for 12 months. Increasingly, couples are turning to assisted reproductive technology (ART) for help with conceiving and ultimately giving birth to a healthy live baby of their own. Fertility treatments are complex, and each ART cycle consists of several steps. If one of these steps is incorrectly applied, the stakes are high as conception may not occur. With this in mind, it is important that each step of the ART cycle is supported by good evidence from well-designed studies. To summarise the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews on procedures and treatment options available to couples with subfertility undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) procedures. Published Cochrane systematic reviews of couples undergoing ART procedures (in vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection) were eligible for inclusion in the overview. We also identified Cochrane reviews in preparation, for future inclusion.The primary outcome of the overview was live birth or the composite outcome live birth or ongoing pregnancy, as reported by the included reviews. Our secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, miscarriage, and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. We excluded studies of intrauterine insemination and ovulation induction.We undertook selection of systematic reviews, data extraction, and quality assessment in duplicate. We assessed review quality by using the AMSTAR tool. We organised reviews by their relevance to specific stages in the ART cycle. We summarised their findings in the text and reported data for each outcome in 'Additional tables'. We included 68 systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library up to May 2018. All were of high quality. These reviews identified 38 interventions that were effective (n = 23) or promising (n = 15), and they identified 19 interventions that were ineffective (n = 2) or possibly ineffective (n = 17). For 15 interventions, review authors were unable to draw conclusions owing to lack of evidence.We identified an additional 11 protocols and four titles for future inclusion in this overview. This overview provides the most up-to-date evidence on ART cycles from systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials. Fertility treatments are costly, and the stakes are high. Using the best available evidence to optimise outcomes is best practice. Evidence from this overview could be used to develop clinical practice guidelines and protocols that can be applied in daily clinical practice to improve live birth rates and reduce rates of multiple pregnancy, cycle cancellation, and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 254 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 254 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 51 20%
Student > Bachelor 42 17%
Researcher 32 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 7%
Other 14 6%
Other 44 17%
Unknown 53 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 91 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 25 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 4%
Psychology 7 3%
Other 39 15%
Unknown 57 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 31 July 2020.
All research outputs
of 16,699,900 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 284,700 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 173 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,699,900 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,574 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 284,700 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 173 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.