↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

What is this page? Embed badge

Long-acting FSH versus daily FSH for women undergoing assisted reproduction

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2012
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 (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
8 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
Summary News Twitter Wikipedia Dimensions citations
Title
Long-acting FSH versus daily FSH for women undergoing assisted reproduction
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009577.pub2
Pubmed ID
22696386
Authors

Pouwer, Annefloor W, Farquhar, Cindy, Kremer, Jan AM, Annefloor W Pouwer, Cindy Farquhar, Jan AM Kremer

Abstract

Assisted reproduction techniques (ART) such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) can help subfertile couples to create a family. It is necessary to induce multiple follicles; this is achieved by follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) injections. Current treatment regimens prescribe daily injections of FSH (urinary FSH with or without luteinizing hormone (LH) injections or recombinant FSH (rFSH)).Recombinant DNA technologies have produced a new recombinant molecule which is a long-acting FSH, named corifollitropin alfa (Elonva) or FSH-CTP. A single dose of long-acting FSH is able to keep the circulating FSH level above the threshold necessary to support multi-follicular growth for an entire week. The optimal dose of long-acting FSH is still being determined. A single injection of long-acting FSH can replace seven daily FSH injections during the first week of controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) and can make assisted reproduction more patient friendly.

View on publisher site

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Russia 1 2%
Unknown 41 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 24%
Student > Master 8 19%
Researcher 6 14%
Other 5 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 4 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 52%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Computer Science 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 5 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 22 February 2016.
All research outputs
#1,574,837
of 23,310,485 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,600
of 12,444 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,730
of 168,524 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#35
of 169 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,310,485 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,444 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 32.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 168,524 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 169 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.

This page is hosted by Altmetric on behalf of Cochrane Library.