ReviewTurkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology2015
Genomic, proteomic and lipidomic evaluation of endometrial receptivity.
Review in Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Review
- Melatonin improves endometrial receptivity and embryo implantation via MT2/PI3K/LIF signaling pathway in sows.Journal of animal science and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Analysis of predictors of clinical pregnancy and live birth in patients with RIF treated with IVF-ET technology: a cohort study based on a propensity score approach.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Lipid Metabolism and Improvement in Oilseed Crops: Recent Advances in Multi-Omics Studies.Metabolites · 2023Review
- Can biomarkers identified from the uterine fluid transcriptome be used to establish a noninvasive endometrial receptivity prediction tool? A proof-of-concept study.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endometrial receptivity is a complex phenomenon that plays a vital role in infertility. Although quality of embryo can be evaluated for a successful implantation, endometrial receptivity is still an unknown factor. With advances in technology, the microarray approach has provided an 'omic' tool to evaluate endometrial receptivity. In Latin, 'omic' means the whole family. The genomic, proteomic, and lipidomic evaluations of endometrium mean a wholesome evaluation of the genes, lipids and proteins of the endometrium. Evaluation of receptivity with this three-way approach may provide insight to the potential markers of implantation. Genomic analysis has been limited to date because not every gene alteration affects protein expression. Lipidomic analysis has recently gained popularity because lipids are strictly controlled during the implantation period. In summary, with the recent advances in microarray technology, genomic, lipidomic, and proteomic analyses of the endometrium may provide 'optimal' evaluation tools and criteria to assess receptivity in the near future.
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.