ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2019
ART Registries-Characteristics and experiences: A comparative study.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Treatment experience of patients with failedFrontiers in public health · 2026Article
- A realist evaluation of the development, implementation and outcomes of the first public ART Centre in Morocco.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- [Obstetric and neonatal outcomes in pregnancies conceived by assisted reproductive technology in an Argentine cohort]Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias Medicas (Cordoba, Argentina) · 2024Article
- Developing the minimum data set of the corrosive ingestion registry system in Iran.BMC health services research · 2022Review
- Design, development, and evaluation of a registry system for hyperbaric oxygen therapy: A methodological study.Health science reports · 2022Article
- Establishing a minimum data set for suicide and attempted suicide registry system in Iran.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Indicators of infertility and fertility care: a systematic scoping review.Human reproduction open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe incident of infertility is continuously increasing. As a result, the demand for medical care such as assisted reproductive technology (ART) technology is equally increasing. In order to manage the growing data and information collected on ART, there is a need for a registry system can provide accurate statistics about activities and outcomes and ensure the quality control. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine and compare In vitro fertilization (IVF) and ART registries.
methodsThis is a descriptive-comparative study in which data from the national ART registries of 14 selected countries in 2018 were collected. In this study, databases such as PubMed, Web of Sciences, and Scopus, as well as Google Scholar websites were searched.
resultsImportant aspects of the registry were studied. One of the most important goals of these systems is to collect information about ART, as well as to monitor and report the results and implications, and also implement new care plans.
conclusionA national registry helps to better understand the scope and the effect of assisted reproduction on the health of infertile couples. By this registry system, different countries can compare the data with other countries, allowing the improvement of techniques and the best possible care for patients.
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.