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 |
Patients’ administration preferences: progesterone vaginal insert (Endometrin®) compared to intramuscular progesterone for Luteal phase support
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Reproductive Health, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1742-4755-11-78 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Angeline N Beltsos, Mark D Sanchez, Kevin J Doody, Mark R Bush, Alice D Domar, Michael G Collins |
| Abstract |
Administration of exogenous progesterone for luteal phase support has become a standard of practice. Intramuscular (IM) injections of progesterone in oil (PIO) and vaginal administration of progesterone are the primary routes of administration. This report describes the administration preferences expressed by women with infertility that were given progesterone vaginal insert (PVI) or progesterone in oil injections (PIO) for luteal phase support during fresh IVF cycles. |
X Demographics
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 84 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 11% |
| Researcher | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 14 | 17% |
| Unknown | 22 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 12% |
| Psychology | 7 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 12% |
| Unknown | 25 | 30% |
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 30 December 2021.
All research outputs
#6,411,532
of 22,780,165 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Health
#738
of 1,410 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,881
of 258,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Health
#10
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,780,165 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,410 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 258,986 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.