Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34202247›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

Effects of Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals on Endometrial Receptivity and Embryo Implantation: A Systematic Review of 34 Mouse Model Studies.

Donatella Caserta, Flavia Costanzi, Maria Paola De Marco, Luisa Di Benedetto, Eleonora Matteucci, Chiara Assorgi, Maria Clara Pacilli, Aris Raad Besharat, Filippo Bellati, Ilary Ruscito

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. The changing tide of human fertility.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2022
    Article
  18. Review
  19. 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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Donatella CasertaGynecology Division, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Sant'Andrea University Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Via di Grottarossa 1035, 00189 Rome, Italy.
Flavia CostanziGynecology Division, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Sant'Andrea University Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Via di Grottarossa 1035, 00189 Rome, Italy.
Maria Paola De MarcoGynecology Division, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Sant'Andrea University Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Via di Grottarossa 1035, 00189 Rome, Italy.
Luisa Di BenedettoGynecology Division, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Sant'Andrea University Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Via di Grottarossa 1035, 00189 Rome, Italy.
Eleonora MatteucciGynecology Division, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Sant'Andrea University Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Via di Grottarossa 1035, 00189 Rome, Italy.
Chiara AssorgiGynecology Division, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Sant'Andrea University Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Via di Grottarossa 1035, 00189 Rome, Italy.
Maria Clara PacilliGynecology Division, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Sant'Andrea University Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Via di Grottarossa 1035, 00189 Rome, Italy.
Aris Raad BesharatGynecology Division, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Sant'Andrea University Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Via di Grottarossa 1035, 00189 Rome, Italy.
Filippo BellatiGynecology Division, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Sant'Andrea University Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Via di Grottarossa 1035, 00189 Rome, Italy.
Ilary RuscitoGynecology Division, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Sant'Andrea University Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Via di Grottarossa 1035, 00189 Rome, Italy.
Sapienza University of Rome · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several available studies have already analyzed the systemic effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) on fertile woman and neonatal outcomes, but little is still known in humans about the precise mechanisms of interference of these compounds with the endometrial receptivity. There is consistent evidence that continuous and prolonged exposure to EDCs is a risk factor for reduced fertility and fecundity in women. Preliminary studies on mammalian models provide robust evidence about this issue and could help gynecologists worldwide to prevent long term injury caused by EDCs on human fertility. In this systematic review, we aimed to systematically summarize all available data about EDC effects on blastocyst endometrial implantation. We performed a systematic review using PubMed

Indexed as

Endocrine DisruptorsAnimalsEmbryo ImplantationEndometriumFemaleFertilityHumansMiceReceptors, ProgesteroneEndocrine DisruptorsReceptors, Progesteroneendocrine disrupting chemicalsenvironmental pollutantsimplantation failureinfertilityphthalatepost-implantation loss

Identifiers

PMID34202247
PMCPMC8297133
OpenAlexW3176347233

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.