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 |
Salpingectomy before assisted reproductive technologies: a systematic literature review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Ovarian Research, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13048-016-0284-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marco Noventa, Salvatore Gizzo, Carlo Saccardi, Shara Borgato, Amerigo Vitagliano, Michela Quaranta, Pietro Litta, Michele Gangemi, Guido Ambrosini, Donato D’Antona, Stefano Palomba |
| Abstract |
Salpingectomy is largely used in case of hydrosalpinx in infertile women scheduled for assisted reproductive technologies (ART), whereas there is no consensus on its role in absence of hydrosalpinx. The current is a systematic literature review to collate all available evidence regarding salpingectomy as fertility enhancement procedure before ART in infertile patients. Our primary endpoint was to assess the impact of the surgical procedure on ovarian reserve, and secondary outcomes were to evaluate its benefits and harms on ART outcomes. We identified 29 papers of which 16 reporting data on the impact of tubal surgery on ovarian reserve and 24 (11 previously included) on ART outcomes. Available data suggested an absence of variation in ovarian reserve markers after unilateral salpingectomy while contradictory results were reported for bilateral surgery. Considering ART outcomes, data reported a significant improvement in ongoing pregnancy/live-birth rate in treated subjects without significant reduction in ovarian response to gonadotropin stimulation. In case of tubal disease, a surgical approach based on unilateral salpingectomy may be considered safe, without negative effects on ovarian reserve and ovarian response to controlled ovarian stimulation whilst having a positive effect on pregnancy rate. Data regarding bilateral salpingectomy and ovarian reserve are conflicting. Further trials are needed to confirm both the benefits of salpingectomy before ART and the safety of bilateral salpingectomy on ovarian reserve, and to clarify the role of uni- or bilateral surgery in case of tubal blockage without hydrosalpinx. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 56 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 9 | 16% |
| Researcher | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 12 | 21% |
| Unknown | 13 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 50% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 19 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 06 November 2016.
All research outputs
#15,392,529
of 22,899,952 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Ovarian Research
#234
of 594 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,604
of 311,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Ovarian Research
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,899,952 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 594 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 311,569 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.