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.
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
GnRH Agonist Trigger and LH Activity Luteal Phase Support versus hCG Trigger and Conventional Luteal Phase Support in Fresh Embryo Transfer IVF/ICSI Cycles—A Systematic PRISMA Review and Meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in endocrinology, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fendo.2017.00116 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thor Haahr, Matheus Roque, Sandro C. Esteves, Peter Humaidan |
| Abstract |
The use of GnRH agonist (GnRHa) for final oocyte maturation trigger in oocyte donation and elective frozen embryo transfer cycles is well established due to lower ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) rates as compared to hCG trigger. A recent Cochrane meta-analysis concluded that GnRHa trigger was associated with reduced live birth rates (LBRs) in fresh autologous IVF cycles compared to hCG trigger. However, the evidence is not unequivocal, and recent trials have found encouraging reproductive outcomes among couples undergoing GnRHa trigger and individualized luteal LH activity support. Thus, the aim was to compare GnRHa trigger followed by luteal LH activity support with hCG trigger in IVF patients undergoing fresh embryo transfer. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials published until December 14, 2016. The population was infertile patients submitted to IVF/ICSI cycles with GnRH antagonist cotreatment who underwent fresh embryo transfer. The intervention was GnRHa trigger followed by LH activity luteal phase support (LPS). The comparator was hCG trigger followed by a standard LPS. The critical outcome measures were LBR and OHSS rate. The secondary outcome measures were number of oocytes retrieved, clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates, and miscarriage rates. A total of five studies met the selection criteria comprising a total of 859 patients. The LBR was not significantly different between the GnRHa and hCG trigger groups (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.62, 1.14). OHSS was reported in a total of 4/413 cases in the GnRHa group compared to 7/413 in the hCG group (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.15, 1.60). We observed a slight, but non-significant increase in miscarriage rate in the GnRHa triggered group compared to the hCG group (OR 1.85; 95% CI 0.97, 3.54). GnRHa trigger with LH activity LPS resulted in comparable LBRs compared to hCG trigger. The most recent trials reported LBRs close to unity indicating that individualization of the LH activity LPS improved the luteal phase deficiency reported in the first GnRHa trigger studies. However, LPS optimization is needed to further limit OHSS in the subgroup of normoresponder patients (<14 follicles ≥ 11 mm). CRD42016051091. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 73 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 12% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Researcher | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 23% |
| Unknown | 24 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 34% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 12% |
| Unknown | 30 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 08 June 2017.
All research outputs
#15,989,045
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in endocrinology
#3,846
of 13,018 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,485
of 331,588 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in endocrinology
#38
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,018 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 331,588 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 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 58% of its contemporaries.