Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33880420›Full record

ArticleHuman reproduction open2021

Endometrial Receptivity Analysis (ERA): data versus opinions.

Maria Ruiz-Alonso, Diana Valbuena, Carlos Gomez, Juliana Cuzzi, Carlos Simon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human reproduction open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  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

5 authors.

Maria Ruiz-AlonsoIgenomix Foundation-INCLIVA, Valencia, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3938-3486
Diana ValbuenaIgenomix Foundation-INCLIVA, Valencia, Spain.
Carlos GomezIgenomix SL, Valencia, Spain.
Juliana CuzziIgenomix USA & Canada, Miami, FL, USA.
Carlos SimonIgenomix Foundation-INCLIVA, Valencia, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0902-9531

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article summarises and contextualises the accumulated basic and clinical data on the ERA test and addresses specific comments and opinions presented by the opponent as part of an invited debate. Progress in medicine depends on new technologies and concepts that translate to practice to solve long-standing problems. In a key example, combining RNA sequencing data (transcriptomics) with artificial intelligence (AI) led to a clinical revolution in personalising disease diagnosis and fostered the concept of precision medicine. The reproductive field is no exception. Translation of endometrial transcriptomics to the clinic yielded an objective definition of the limited time period during which the maternal endometrium is receptive to an embryo, known as the window of implantation (WOI). The WOI is induced by the presence of exogenous and/or endogenous progesterone (P) after proper oestradiol (E

Indexed as

embryo transferendometrial receptivityendometriumimplantation / recurrent implantation failure

Identifiers

PMID33880420
PMCPMC8045472

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.