Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36381837›Full record

ReviewCureus2022

Recent Advancements in In Vitro Fertilisation.

Kadambari Singh, Deepika Dewani

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. An assessment of total antioxidant and oxidant parameters and their correlation with embryo quality in in-vitro fertilization patients.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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

2 authors.

Kadambari SinghSurgery, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences, Wardha, IND.
Deepika DewaniObstetrics and Gynaecology, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences, Wardha, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The field of assisted reproductive technologies has witnessed many new developments over the past 10 years. This review examines new stimulation techniques that might increase the number of fully developed oocytes derived during the in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycle in addition to strategies for enhancing oocyte quality in older women. Before moving on to several fresh methods for determining endometrial receptivity, we talk about how preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) is currently being utilised. The main goal of this review is to highlight technological fields that might be debatable or are still sufficiently novel to require rigorous controlled trials for recognition. The use of IVF has been on the rise recently, mostly as a result of deferred childbearing, and there is no reason to believe that this trend will alter. Infertility therapies have advanced significantly thanks to the methods and techniques that were established via studies on animals and, more recently, people. Some technical discoveries in reproductive medicine have had a significant impact on innovations and treatment choices in other fields of medicine as well. The objective of this succinct review article is to quickly summarise and explain the advancements made in this intriguing area of medicine over the past 40 years.

Indexed as

co-enzyme q10infertilityin vitro fertilization (ivf)letrozolepre-implantation genetic screeningreproductive genetics

Identifiers

PMID36381837
PMCPMC9644046

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.