ArticleJDS communications2025
Efficacy of methods to synchronize follicular wave emergence in pregnant heifers.
Article in JDS communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Does synchronising follicular wave emergence improve outcomes in non-superstimulated donor cattle undergoing ovum pick-up (OPU) for in vitro embryo production?Australian veterinary journal · 2026Review
- OptimizingAnimal reproduction · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of various methods for synchronization of follicular wave emergence (FWE) in pregnant heifers. Pregnant (60 d of gestation) Holstein heifers (n = 86) arranged in cohorts were randomly assigned to be administered 172 µg of gonadorelin acetate (GnRH), 3,300 IU of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), follicular ablation of follicles >5 mm (FA), or saline (control). Ultrasonography was performed to determine ovulation and emergence of a new follicular wave. Data were analyzed using generalized linear mixed models with treatment as a fixed effect and cohort as a random effect. Ovulatory response was greater for hCG (81.0%; 95% CI: 58.0-92.9) than GnRH-treated (50.0%; 95% CI: 28.8-71.2) heifers, whereas ovulation was not observed for heifers in the FA or control groups. Heifers in the FA group had a shorter (34.8 ± 1.7 h) interval from treatment to FWE compared with heifers in the hCG (51.8 ± 5.3 h), GnRH (56.8 ± 5.3 h), and control (61.4 ± 9.8 h) groups. Furthermore, treatments differed in variability of time to FWE, whereby FA-treated heifers had less variable, more consistent responses than hCG and GnRH heifers. These groups were, in turn, less variable in time to FWE than heifers in the control group. Synchronization of FWE efficacy was greater in FA (97.6%; 95% CI: 69.8%-99.9%) and hCG-treated (75.0%; 95% CI: 52.8%-89.0%) heifers than control (27.5%; 95% CI: 12.2%-50.9%) heifers, with marginal evidence for a difference between GnRH (69.1%; 95% CI: 46.4%-85.2%) and control heifers. Overall, we found no evidence for differences in FWE synchronization efficacy between hCG, GnRH, and FA. Nevertheless, FA resulted in a shorter and less variable interval from treatment to FWE, thus providing a more precise control of follicular development.
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.