ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2022
Effect of calcium ionophore (A23187) on embryo development and its safety in PGT cycles.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing the impact of calcium ionophore on pregnancy outcomes in artificial oocyte activation cycles: a 10-year update of systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Pooled it
- Reevaluating statistical methods for proportion-based laboratory outcomes in assisted reproduction.Journal of ovarian research · 2026Review
- Optimization of handmade cloning enhances pregnancy rates and live calf production in cattle.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Human oocyte zona pellucida abnormalities: evaluation of clinical impact for different zona pellucida abnormalities and role of using assisted hatching.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Article
- Exploring key embryonic developmental morphokinetic parameters that affect clinical outcomes during the PGT cycle using time-lapse monitoring systems.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) has tremendous advantages for resolving the problem of male infertility. However, ICSI fertilization can fail in some patients because of various reasons, primarily because of the failure of oocyte activation. Oocytes have been activated using calcium ionophore (A23187) in previous clinical cases of ICSI fertilization failure. However, studies on the efficiency of calcium ionophore (A23187) activation, its effects on the developmental potential of embryos, and its effects on pregnancy outcomes after embryo transfer are relatively limited. Methods: In this study, we investigated the safety and long-term efficacy of calcium ionophore (A23187) by analyzing its effects on fertilization, embryonic development, aneuploidy, and pregnancy outcomes in patients undergoing preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) cycles. Results: Comparative analyses of the activation followed by PGT (A-PGT) and PGT groups revealed no significant differences between the oocyte cleavage rate and high-quality embryo rate (98.19% vs. 98.63% and 63.13% vs. 68.39%, respectively, Discussion: These results suggest that the use of calcium ionophore (A23187) activation as an option in cases of ICSI fertilization failure does not affect the ploidy of developing blastocysts and has no significant effects on the week of delivery or birth weight after transfer. Thus, we provide a scientific basis for the clinical safety of oocyte activation using calcium ionophore (A23187).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.