Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35699357›Full record

ArticleReproduction in domestic animals = Zuchthygiene2022

Reproductive efficiency of sows inseminated at single dose fixed time with refrigerated, cryopreserved and encapsulated spermatozoa.

Raúl Sánchez-Sánchez, Sonia S Pérez-Garnelo, Mercedes Martín Lluch, Paloma de la Cruz, Maria V Falceto, Alejandro Córdova-Izquierdo, Juan Grandía Torner, Olga Mitjana, Andrés E Suárez, Teresa Montull and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Reproduction in domestic animals = Zuchthygiene, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

13 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Raúl Sánchez-SánchezDepartment of Animal Reproduction, National Institute for Agricultural and Food Research and Technology (INIA-CSIC), Madrid, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2987-5906
Sonia S Pérez-GarneloDepartment of Animal Reproduction, National Institute for Agricultural and Food Research and Technology (INIA-CSIC), Madrid, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7600-0539
Mercedes Martín LluchDepartment of Animal Reproduction, National Institute for Agricultural and Food Research and Technology (INIA-CSIC), Madrid, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4734-4196
Paloma de la CruzDepartment of Animal Reproduction, National Institute for Agricultural and Food Research and Technology (INIA-CSIC), Madrid, Spain.
Maria V FalcetoDepartment of Animal Pathology, Veterinary Faculty of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain.
Alejandro Córdova-IzquierdoAutonomous Metropolitan University Xochimilco Unit, México City, Mexico.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7313-6310
Juan Grandía TornerDepartment of Animal Pathology, Veterinary Faculty of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain.
Olga MitjanaDepartment of Animal Pathology, Veterinary Faculty of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain.
Andrés E SuárezDepartment of Animal Pathology, Veterinary Faculty of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6626-8224
Teresa MontullAgrotest Control, Zaragoza, Spain.
Juan Grandía AnsóAgrotest Control, Zaragoza, Spain.
Trinidad AnsóPorcine Artificial Insemination Center of Cinco Villas, Ejea de los Caballeros, Zaragoza, Spain.
Ernesto Gómez-FidalgoDepartment of Animal Reproduction, National Institute for Agricultural and Food Research and Technology (INIA-CSIC), Madrid, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9128-5272
Universidad de Zaragoza · ESInstitute of Agrifood Research and Technology · ESLaboratory of Research in Fluid Dynamics and Combustion Technologies · ESUniversidad Autónoma Metropolitana · MX

Funding

Funded by the insemination center "Cinco Villas" Artificial Insemination Center, Government of Aragon and European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim was to assess the reproductive efficiency of different techniques used to preserve spermatozoa in artificial insemination semen doses (AI-doses) by evaluating refrigeration at 15°C, cryopreservation and encapsulation. Forty-two hyperprolific sows were treated with buserelin and inseminated once at a single fixed time. The fertility rate, embryonic vesicles viability and the early embryonic mortality (arrested conceptuses) evaluated post-mortem at 24th day of pregnancy, were analysed in order to assess the effectiveness of each proposed technique. Results show an overall reduction on fertility using the three proposal sperm preservation techniques (69.27%, 60.00% and 78.75% for refrigerated, frozen-thawed and encapsulated AI-doses, respectively). Total number of embryonic vesicles was very similar among the three treatments; yet, the number of viable vesicles was numerically different among groups, and thus, embryonic viability was 79.25%, 80.0% and 87.15% for refrigerated, frozen-thawed and encapsulated AI-doses, respectively.

Indexed as

SemenSemen PreservationAnimalsBuserelinCryopreservationFemaleFertilityInsemination, ArtificialMalePregnancySpermatozoaSwineBuserelinBuserelincryopreserved semenencapsulated spermatozoafixed-time inseminationrefrigerated semensemen preservation

Identifiers

PMID35699357
PMCPMC9796075
OpenAlexW4282914081

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.