Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29034142›Full record

ArticleCurrent epidemiology reports2017

Epidemiologic Approaches for Studying Assisted Reproductive Technologies: Design, Methods, Analysis and Interpretation.

Carmen Messerlian, Audrey J Gaskins

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current epidemiology reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Deep technology for the optimization of cryostorage.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Choice of statistical model in observational studies of ART.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Carmen MesserlianDepartment of Environmental Health, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA.
Audrey J GaskinsDepartment of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA.

Funding

Maternal Exposure to Air Pollution and Early Pregnancy OutcomesK99ES026648 · NIEHS · HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI GASKINS, AUDREY JANE · 2017 to 2018
$246k
NICHD NIH HHS L50 HD085359NIEHS NIH HHS K99 ES026648
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWhile considerable progress has been made since the advent of assisted reproductive technology (ART), the field remains a complex and challenging one for clinicians and researchers alike. This review discusses some of the most salient issues pertaining to the study of ART and whenever possible suggestions on how to address them. RECENT

findingsMore than 5 million babies have been born through ART to date, representing up to 4% of all births worldwide. While technologies continue to evolve and demand for treatment grows, it is more important than ever to conduct rigorous and timely research to help guide clinical practice that is safe and effective, and that minimizes potential short- and long-term adverse outcomes to mother and child. SUMMARY: ART research will require exceedingly more sophisticated research methods, designs, and analyses that are rooted in a reproductive epidemiological framework in order to improve future research and ultimately promote better outcomes for all subfertile couples and their children.

Indexed as

analysisassisted reproductive technologydesigninfertilityresearch methods

Identifiers

PMID29034142
PMCPMC5636007

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.