Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31833449›Full record

ReviewUpsala journal of medical sciences2020

Ylva Sjunnesson

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Upsala journal of medical sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Biopreservation in Agriculture and Food Systems: A Summary of Ethical Issues.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2024
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Human Chorionic Gonadotropin and Early Embryogenesis: Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Antioxidants in assisted reproductive technologies: An overview on dog, cat, and horse.Journal of advanced veterinary and animal research · 2021
    Review
  15. Review
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ylva SjunnessonDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Reproduction, The Centre for Reproductive Biology in Uppsala (CRU), Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Uppsala, Sweden.
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many factors influence the final oocyte maturation, fertilisation, and early embryo development, and there are both similarities and differences between species. When comparing the advancement of assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs), the development in the bovine species is not far behind the medical front, with around one million

Indexed as

Animals, DomesticAnimalsFertilization in VitroHumansModels, AnimalEmbryoin vitro maturationin vitro productionoocytespecies comparison

Identifiers

PMID31833449
PMCPMC7721027
OpenAlexW2996525297

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.