Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20824839›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2010

Follicular flushing during oocyte retrieval in assisted reproductive techniques.

Supreeya Wongtra-Ngan, Teraporn Vutyavanich, Julie Brown

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. A pilot trial of large versus small diameter needles for oocyte retrieval.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2013
    Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Comprehensive evidence on assisted reproductive technologies.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014
    Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Supreeya Wongtra-NganDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand, 50200.
Teraporn Vutyavanich
Julie Brown
Chiang Mai University · THUniversity of Auckland · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUltrasound guided transvaginal aspiration of oocytes has replaced other methods of oocyte retrieval for in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). However, there is controversy over whether flushing yields a larger number of oocytes and a higher potential for pregnancy than aspiration only.

objectivesTo determine whether follicular aspiration and flushing increases live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates and the number of oocytes over aspiration alone in women undergoing IVF and ICSI. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PsycINFO and the citation lists of relevant publications (to April 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that compared follicular aspiration and flushing with aspiration alone were included. Trials were excluded if the flushing method comparison was confounded by comparisons of other methods. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Eligible studies were assessed for methodological quality. For dichotomous data, odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. For continuous data, mean differences were reported. The heterogeneity of the studies was examined by using statistical tests of homogeneity and the I(2) statistic. MAIN

resultsNo studies reported on the primary outcome of live birth. There was no evidence (3 studies, 164 patients) to suggest an association between follicular aspiration and flushing and ongoing or clinical pregnancy per woman randomised (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.38). There was no evidence of a difference in adverse events reported between follicular aspiration and flushing and aspiration only. There was no evidence of significant differences in increased oocyte yield per woman randomised (1 study, 44 patients). Without flushing the operative time was significantly shorter, by 3 to 15 minutes (3 studies, P < 0.001) and the dose of pethidine required was significantly less (50 mg versus 100 mg, P < 0.00001). AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is no evidence that follicular aspiration and flushing is associated with improved clinical or ongoing pregnancy rates, nor an increase in oocyte yield. The operative time is significantly longer and more opiate analgesia is required for pain relief during oocyte retrieval. There is a lack of evidence regarding the effect of follicular aspiration and flushing on live birth rates in the identified data.

Indexed as

Ovarian FollicleFemaleFertilization in VitroHumansOocyte RetrievalPregnancyPregnancy RateRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSperm Injections, IntracytoplasmicTherapeutic IrrigationTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID20824839
OpenAlexW1652064484

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.