↓ 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 (83rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
381 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
306 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters 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 306 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 302 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 43 14%
Student > Master 38 12%
Researcher 32 10%
Other 31 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 10%
Other 66 22%
Unknown 65 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 124 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 29 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 4%
Psychology 11 4%
Other 26 8%
Unknown 82 27%

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 01 January 2021.
All research outputs
#3,058,732
of 19,862,278 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,682
of 2,931 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,226
of 392,734 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#191
of 296 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,862,278 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 2,931 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.4. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 392,734 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 296 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.