ArticleLancet (London, England)2024
Towards a nuanced view and response to global fertility trends.
Article in Lancet (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The role of mTOR signaling in regulating the quality of mammalian oocytes.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Review
- Effects of pronatal policies on sexual and reproductive health services: a protocol for a scoping review.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Application of machine learning algorithms to model predictors of informed contraceptive choice among reproductive age women in six high fertility rate sub Sahara Africa countries.BMC public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38521085What 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.