ArticleTropical animal health and production2026
Effects of the Double-Ovsynch and Presynch-Ovsynch protocols on first-service conception rate in dairy cows with and without subclinical endometritis.
Article in Tropical animal health and production, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study evaluated the effects of synchronization with Presynch–Ovsynch or Double-Ovsynch protocols on first-service conception rate (FSCR) in cows with and without subclinical endometritis (SCE). We hypothesized that the negative effect of SCE on FSCR would be evident under Presynch–Ovsynch but mitigated under Double-Ovsynch. A total of 314 Holstein cows from four semi-technified Mexican dairy farms were included. Uterine cytology at 30 ± 5 days postpartum was used to diagnose SCE, and pregnancy was confirmed 45 days after insemination. Fisher’s exact test and logistic regression were used to evaluate associations between SCE, synchronization protocol, and FSCR. Among cows synchronized with Double-Ovsynch, FSCR was lower in SCE-positive than SCE-negative cows (29.6% vs. 43.8%, P = 0.040). A similar trend occurred in Presynch–Ovsynch cows (35.0% vs. 47.2%, P = 0.059). Logistic regression identified SCE as the only variable trending toward significance (P = 0.086, OR = 1.6; 95% CI: 0.935–2.782), suggesting that SCE increases the risk of reduced FSCR. No significant interaction between synchronization protocol and SCE status was found (P > 0.1), and Double-Ovsynch did not improve FSCR over Presynch–Ovsynch. Among SCE-negative cows, Presynch–Ovsynch tended to yield higher FSCR than Double-Ovsynch (47.2% vs. 43.8%, P = 0.093). In SCE-positive cows, FSCR remained low across protocols with no significant difference (P = 0.160). Synchronization protocol had no significant FSCR effect in primiparous cows (P = 0.139). In multiparous cows, the observed trend suggested a potential Presynch–Ovsynch advantage (P = 0.082). In conclusion, in semi-technified dairy farms, SCE significantly reduces FSCR, regardless of the synchronization protocol, while Double-Ovsynch does not mitigate this effect.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41718795What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.