Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34198740›Full record

ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2021

Effect of Endometrial Sampling Procedures on Subsequent Pregnancy Rate of Cattle.

Orlando Ramirez-Garzon, Ricardo Soares Magalhaes, Nana Satake, Jonathan Hill, Claudia Jimenez, Michael K Holland, Michael McGowan

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Histological Studies in the Endometrium of Fertile and Subfertile Bitches.Reproduction in domestic animals = Zuchthygiene · 2025
    Article
  2. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Orlando Ramirez-GarzonSchool of Veterinary Science, The University of Queensland, Gatton, QLD 4343, Australia.
Ricardo Soares MagalhaesChild Health Research Centre, The University of Queensland, South Brisbane, QLD 4141, Australia.
Nana SatakeSchool of Veterinary Science, The University of Queensland, Gatton, QLD 4343, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4895-7437
Jonathan HillSchool of Veterinary Science, The University of Queensland, Gatton, QLD 4343, Australia.
Claudia JimenezFacultad de Medicina Veterinaria, Universidad Nacional, Bogota 111321, Colombia.ORCID 0000-0002-7826-1652
Michael K HollandSchool of Veterinary Science, The University of Queensland, Gatton, QLD 4343, Australia.
Michael McGowanSchool of Veterinary Science, The University of Queensland, Gatton, QLD 4343, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0783-4748
The University of Queensland · AUUniversidad Nacional de Colombia · CO

Funding

Departamento Administrativo de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (COLCIENCIAS) 568/2012
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Endometrial infections are a common cause of reproductive loss in cattle. Accurate diagnosis is important to reduce the economic losses caused by endometritis. A range of sampling procedures have been developed which enable collection of endometrial tissue or luminal cells or uterine fluid. However, as these are all invasive procedures, there is a risk that sampling around the time of breeding may adversely affect subsequent pregnancy rate. This systematic review compared the pregnancy rates (PR) of cattle which underwent uterine lavage (UL), cotton swab (CS), cytobrush (CB), cytotape (CT), or endometrial biopsy (EB) sampling procedures with those that were not sampled. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) protocol, relevant databases, including Pubmed, Web of Science, CAB Abstracts, VetMed Resource-Ruminants, and Scopus, were searched. The outcome measured was the pregnancy rate after the collection of endometrial sample(s). Seven studies, involving a total of 3693 cows, fulfilled the inclusion criteria for the systematic review and allowed the comparison of PR between sampled (

Indexed as

cattlecotton swabcytobrushcytotapeendometrial biopsyuterine lavage

Identifiers

PMID34198740
PMCPMC8228172
OpenAlexW3167727843

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.