↓ Skip to main content

Cancer and fertility preservation: international recommendations from an expert meeting

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
447 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
337 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
Cancer and fertility preservation: international recommendations from an expert meeting
Published in
BMC Medicine, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0545-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matteo Lambertini, Lucia Del Mastro, Maria C. Pescio, Claus Y. Andersen, Hatem A. Azim, Fedro A. Peccatori, Mauro Costa, Alberto Revelli, Francesca Salvagno, Alessandra Gennari, Filippo M. Ubaldi, Giovanni B. La Sala, Cristofaro De Stefano, W. Hamish Wallace, Ann H. Partridge, Paola Anserini

Abstract

In the last years, thanks to the improvement in the prognosis of cancer patients, a growing attention has been given to the fertility issues. International guidelines on fertility preservation in cancer patients recommend that physicians discuss, as early as possible, with all patients of reproductive age their risk of infertility from the disease and/or treatment and their interest in having children after cancer, and help with informed fertility preservation decisions. As recommended by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Society for Medical Oncology, sperm cryopreservation and embryo/oocyte cryopreservation are standard strategies for fertility preservations in male and female patients, respectively; other strategies (e.g. pharmacological protection of the gonads and gonadal tissue cryopreservation) are considered experimental techniques. However, since then, new data have become available, and several issues in this field are still controversial and should be addressed by both patients and their treating physicians.In April 2015, physicians with expertise in the field of fertility preservation in cancer patients from several European countries were invited in Genova (Italy) to participate in a workshop on the topic of "cancer and fertility preservation". A total of ten controversial issues were discussed at the conference. Experts were asked to present an up-to-date review of the literature published on these topics and the presentation of own unpublished data was encouraged. On the basis of the data presented, as well as the expertise of the invited speakers, a total of ten recommendations were discussed and prepared with the aim to help physicians in counseling their young patients interested in fertility preservation.Although there is a great interest in this field, due to the lack of large prospective cohort studies and randomized trials on these topics, the level of evidence is not higher than 3 for most of the recommendations highlighting the need of further research efforts in many areas of this field. The participation to the ongoing registries and prospective studies is crucial to acquire more robust information in order to provide evidence-based recommendations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users 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 337 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Unknown 333 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 46 14%
Student > Master 41 12%
Researcher 34 10%
Other 33 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 9%
Other 65 19%
Unknown 86 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 127 38%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 31 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 4%
Psychology 11 3%
Other 29 9%
Unknown 103 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 October 2021.
All research outputs
#3,574,097
of 22,837,982 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,899
of 3,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,210
of 393,291 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#24
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,837,982 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,432 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.6. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 393,291 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 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 53% of its contemporaries.