ArticleJournal of clinical medicine research2016
History of Assisted Reproductive Technology and Chlamydia Trachomatis Infection in Pregnancy.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence of rubella antibodies: comparison between women with pregnancy induced by infertility treatments and those with spontaneous pregnancy.Journal of preventive medicine and hygiene · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
methodsTo identify whether or not a history of assisted reproductive technology (ART) is associated with the low incidence of Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) infection in pregnant women, we reviewed the obstetric records of the Japanese women aged 35 - 42 years.
resultsThe prevalence of CT in the pregnancies without ART was 1.1% (28/2,632) using nucleic acid amplification tests, while it was zero in the pregnancies conceived by ART (0/364, P = 0.049 by the X(2) test).
conclusionsA history of ART seemed to be a negative risk factor for CT infection in pregnant women.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.