Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29470702›Full record

ReviewJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2018

The mutual benefits of research in wild animal species and human-assisted reproduction.

P Comizzoli, E E Paulson, L K McGinnis

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Morphological and Functional Evaluation of Kodkod (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Adding new ingredients to the recipe for successful embryo transfers.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

P ComizzoliSmithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, National Zoological Park, Washington, DC, 20008, USA. comizzolip@si.edu.
E E PaulsonDepartment of Animal Science, University of California Davis, Davis, CA, USA.
L K McGinnisDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology and USC-Norris Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Studying the reproductive biology of wild animal species produces knowledge beneficial to their management and conservation. However, wild species also share intriguing similarities in reproductive biology with humans, thereby offering alternative models for better understanding the etiology of infertility and developing innovative treatments. The purpose of this review is to raise awareness in different scientific communities about intriguing connections between wild animals and humans regarding infertility syndromes or improvement of fertility preservation. The objectives are to (1) highlight commonalities between wild species and human fertility, (2) demonstrate that research in wild species-assisted reproductive technologies can greatly enhance success in human reproductive medicine, and (3) recognize that human fertility preservation is highly inspiring and relevant to wild species conservation. In addition to having similar biological traits in some wild species and humans, the fact of sharing the same natural environment and the common needs for more options in fertility preservation are strong incentives to build more bridges that will eventually benefit both animal conservation and human reproductive medicine.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnimals, WildBiomedical ResearchHumansReproductive Techniques, AssistedAssisted reproductive technologiesConservationFertilityHumanWildlife

Identifiers

PMID29470702
PMCPMC5949116

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.