| Title |
Global decline in semen quality: ignoring the developing world introduces selection bias
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of General Medicine, March 2012
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijgm.s30673 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Raywat Deonandan, Marya Jaleel |
| Abstract |
Multiple studies from around the world have suggested that semen quality is declining globally. However, all studies suffer from variable semen sampling criteria, selection bias with respect to the types of men volunteering to participate, and a bias with respect to a tendency to examine only samples from high-income countries. This heterogeneity in approaches, especially given the undersampling of rural and less affluent men from low-income countries, calls into question researchers' claims of universally declining semen norms. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Canada | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 20 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 29% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 14% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 4 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 24% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 24% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 10% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 19 April 2012.
All research outputs
#16,361,397
of 25,830,005 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of General Medicine
#610
of 1,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,919
of 169,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of General Medicine
#15
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,830,005 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,669 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 169,038 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.