↓ Skip to main content

A review of luteinising hormone and human chorionic gonadotropin when used in assisted reproductive technology

Overview of attention for article published in Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
153 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
A review of luteinising hormone and human chorionic gonadotropin when used in assisted reproductive technology
Published in
Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology, October 2014
DOI 10.1186/1477-7827-12-95
Pubmed ID
Authors

Diego Ezcurra, Peter Humaidan

Abstract

Gonadotropins extracted from the urine of post-menopausal women have traditionally been used to stimulate folliculogenesis in the treatment of infertility and in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Products, such as human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG), consist not only of a mixture of the hormones, follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinising hormone (LH) and human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), but also other biologically active contaminants, such as growth factors, binding proteins and prions. The actual amount of molecular LH in hMG preparations varies considerably due to the purification process, thus hCG, mimicking LH action, is added to standardise the product. However, unlike LH, hCG plays a very minor role during the natural human menstrual cycle. It is secreted by the embryo and placenta, and its main role is to support implantation and pregnancy. More recently, recombinant gonadotropins (r-hFSH and r-hLH) have become available for ART therapies. Recombinant LH contains only LH molecules. In the field of reproduction there has been controversy in recent years over whether r-hLH or hCG should be used for ART. This review examines the existing evidence for molecular and functional differences between LH and hCG and assesses the clinical implications of hCG-supplemented urinary therapy compared with recombinant therapies used for ART.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 153 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Czechia 1 <1%
Unknown 152 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 13%
Other 18 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 11%
Student > Master 13 8%
Student > Bachelor 13 8%
Other 26 17%
Unknown 46 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 23 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Chemistry 4 3%
Other 14 9%
Unknown 53 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 28 June 2019.
All research outputs
#8,262,445
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology
#328
of 1,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,433
of 266,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology
#4
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,134 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. 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 266,035 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 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.