Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35147196›Full record

ArticleHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2022

Use of 'omics for endometrial timing: the cycle moves on.

John D Aplin, Adam Stevens

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06280560 (Impact of Controlled Ovarian Stimulation and Luteal Phase Support on Endometrial Receptivity and Endometrial Senescent Cell Pathological Accumulation), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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.

NCT06280560 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Impact of Controlled Ovarian Stimulation and Luteal Phase Support on Endometrial Receptivity and Endometrial Senescent Cell Pathological Accumulation: Pilot Study

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorFundación IVIRan2024 to 2025Enrolled60ConditionsEndometrial ReceptivityArmsControlled Ovarian Stimulation + Luteal Phase Support, Hormonal Replacement Therapy programmed artificial cycle, Natural Cycle (NC), Endometrial receptivity reference group
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Progesterone: The Key Factor of the Beginning of Life.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

John D AplinMaternal and Fetal Health Centre, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, University of Manchester, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8777-9261
Adam StevensMaternal and Fetal Health Centre, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, University of Manchester, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1950-7325
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For some years, the prospect of precise and personalized timing of the endometrial cycle for optimal embryo replacement has been held out as a potential solution to low implantation rates. It is envisaged that a receptive state can be defined and reached at a predictable time, and embryo replacement performed in synchrony. In the last century, morphological changes characteristic of the mid secretory phase were defined in precisely timed cycles in women of proven fertility, but when deviations from this standardized schedule occur, their significance for implantation has remained uncertain. 'Omics technologies have been widely advocated for staging the endometrial cycle and defining a set of biochemical requirements for implantation, but after two decades of research, improvements to pregnancy rates have not followed, and there is a striking lack of agreement regarding the molecular characterization of the receptive state. Some of the rationale underlying these problems is now emerging with the application of higher-level computational and biological methodology. Here, we consider the challenges of defining an endometrial phenotype that can support implantation and continuing pregnancy. Receptivity may be an emergent trait depending on contributions from multiple proteins that have low pathway connectivity. We recommend that authors choose language which rigorously avoids the implication that protocols for molecular staging of the mid secretory phase inherently identify a state of receptivity to the implanting blastocyst.

Indexed as

Embryo TransferEndometriumBlastocystEmbryo ImplantationFemaleHumansPregnancyPregnancy RateARTembryo implantationembryo transferendometriumERAgenomicsproteomicsreceptivitytranscriptomicswindow

Identifiers

PMID35147196
PMCPMC8971645
OpenAlexW4210822678

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.