↓ Skip to main content

Ooplasmic transfer in human oocytes: efficacy and concerns in assisted reproduction

Overview of attention for article published in Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
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.
Title
Ooplasmic transfer in human oocytes: efficacy and concerns in assisted reproduction
Published in
Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12958-017-0292-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sara Darbandi, Mahsa Darbandi, Hamid Reza Khorram Khorshid, Mohammad Reza Sadeghi, Ashok Agarwal, Pallav Sengupta, Safaa Al-Hasani, Mohammad Mehdi Akhondi

Abstract

Ooplasmic transfer (OT) technique or cytoplasmic transfer is an emerging technique with relative success, having a significant status in assisted reproduction. This technique had effectively paved the way to about 30 healthy births worldwide. Though OT has long been invented, proper evaluation of the efficacy and risks associated with this critical technique has not been explored properly until today. This review thereby put emphasis upon the applications, efficacy and adverse effects of OT techniques in human. Available reports published between January 1982 and August 2017 has been reviewed and the impact of OT on assisted reproduction was evaluated. The results consisted of an update on the efficacy and concerns of OT, the debate on mitochondrial heteroplasmy, apoptosis, and risk of genetic and epigenetic alteration. The application of OT technique in humans demands more clarity and further development of this technique may successfully prove its utility as an effective treatment for oocyte incompetence.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 27%
Professor 4 12%
Researcher 3 9%
Other 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 6 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 7 21%

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 04 October 2017.
All research outputs
#10,517,357
of 11,868,523 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology
#364
of 459 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#229,916
of 272,685 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,868,523 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 459 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 272,685 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them