Amphibians: Freeze sperm or eggs for future use

Overall effectiveness category Unlikely to be beneficial
Number of studies: 10
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

not assessed
Certainty

not assessed
Harms

not assessed

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Study locations

Key messages

For summarised evidence see Smith, R.K. and Sutherland, W.J. (2014) Amphibian conservation: Global evidence for the effects of interventions. Exeter, Pelagic Publishing.

Key messages and summaries are available here:

http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/876

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

Please cite as:

Jonas, C.S., Timbrell, L.L., Young, F., Petrovan, S.O., Bowkett, A.E. & Smith, R.K. (2020) Management of Captive Animals. Pages 527-553 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2020. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:
Management of Captive Animals

Related Actions

Actions Effectiveness Studies Category

Amphibians: Freeze sperm or eggs for future use
Action Link Unlikely to be beneficial 10 Synopsis Link

Amphibians: Use artificial fertilization in captive breeding
Action Link Trade-off between benefit and harms 4 Synopsis Link

Amphibians: Use artificial cloning from frozen or fresh tissue
Action Link No evidence found (no assessment) 0 Synopsis Link

All related actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Amphibians: Freeze sperm or eggs for future use Action Link	Unlikely to be beneficial	10	Synopsis Link
Amphibians: Use artificial fertilization in captive breeding Action Link	Trade-off between benefit and harms	4	Synopsis Link
Amphibians: Use artificial cloning from frozen or fresh tissue Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link

Management of Captive Animals - Published 2018

Download PDF View PDF

Captive Animal Synopsis

All synopses About synopses Synopsis protocols Synopsis advisory board

Download reference details

This option allows you to download the individual studies which make up this action.

Please select your preferred method below.

Text (full) Text (references only) RIS

Submit additional evidence

Thank you for considering submitting additional evidence about this intervention. Ideally we would like all submitted evidence to have been published in peer-reviewed literature. However, we do welcome evidence of any nature.

Please be aware that given the volume of work we have we cannot guarantee a response to every submission.

Fields with * are required.

Name *

Affiliation *

Email *

Message *

Attach files You may submit up to three additional files

File 1

File 2

File 3

Verification Code

Effectiveness

An assessment by independent experts of the effectiveness of this action based on the summarized evidence (0% = not effective, 100% = highly effective). This score is based on the direction and size of the effects reported in each study. Actions with high scores typically have large, desirable effects on the target species/habitat in each study. There is some variation between actions, e.g. 100% effectiveness in adding underpasses under roads for bat conservation will likely have different impacts to 100% effectiveness in restoring marsh habitat. The effectiveness score does not consider the quantity or quality of studies; a single, poorly designed study could generate a high effectiveness score. The effectiveness score is combined with the certainty and harms scores to determine the overall effectiveness category (for more details see https://www.conservationevidence.com/content/page/79).

Harms

An assessment by independent experts of the harms of this action to the target group of species/habitat, based on the summarized evidence (0% = none, 100% = major undesirable effects). Undesirable effects on other groups of species/habitats are not considered in this score. The harms score is combined with the effectiveness and certainty scores to determine the overall effectiveness category (for more details see https://www.conservationevidence.com/content/page/79).

Certainty

An assessment by independent experts of the certainty of the evidence for this action based on the summarized evidence (0% = no evidence, 100% = high quality evidence). How certain can we be that the effectiveness score applies to all targets of the intervention (e.g. all birds for an action in the bird synopsis)? This score is based on the number, quality and coverage (species, habitats, geographical locations) of studies. Actions with high scores are supported by lots of well-designed studies with a broad coverage relative to the scope of the intervention. However, the definition of "lots" and "well-designed" will vary between interventions and synopses depending on the breadth of the subject. The certainty score is combined with the effectiveness and harms scores to determine the overall effectiveness category (for more details see https://www.conservationevidence.com/content/page/79).

Overall Effectiveness Category

The overall effectiveness category is determined using effectiveness, certainty and harms scores generated by a structured assessment process with multiple rounds of anonymous scoring and commenting (a modified Delphi method). In this assessment, independent subject experts (listed for each synopsis) interpret the summarized evidence using standardised instructions. For more details see https://www.conservationevidence.com/content/page/79.