ArticleChinese medical journal2015
Comparison of the Developmental Potential and Clinical Results of In Vivo Matured Oocytes Cryopreserved with Different Vitrification Media.
Article in Chinese medical journal, 2015. 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.
- Efficiency and safety of vitrification of surplus oocytes following superovulation: a comparison of different clinical indications of oocyte cryopreservation in IVF/ICSI cycles.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Review
- The Effect of Freezing Twice during Assisted Reproductive Technology on Perinatal and Neonatal Outcomes.BioMed research international · 2022Article
- An Eight Year Experience of Autologous Oocyte Vitrification for Infertile Patients Owing to Unavailability of Sperm on Oocyte Retrieval Day.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOocyte vitrification is widely used throughout the world, but its clinical efficacy is inconsistent and depends on the vitrification media. This study compared the developmental potential and clinical results of in vivo matured oocytes cryopreserved with different vitrification media.
methodsThis retrospective study involved vitrified-warmed oocytes at one in vitro fertilization laboratory. Vitrification media kits comprised the MC kit (ethylene glycol [EG] plus 1,2-propanediol [PROH]), the KT kit (EG plus dimethyl sulphoxide [DMSO]), and the Modified kit (EG plus DMSO and PROH kit). Rates of oocyte survival and subsequent developmental potential were recorded and analyzed. The t-test and the Chi-square test were used to evaluate each method's efficacy.
resultsOocyte survival rate was significantly higher for the Modified kit (92.0%) than for the MC kit (88.2%) (P < 0.05) and the KT kit (77.3%) (P < 0.001). The rate of high-quality embryo development in the Modified kit group (35.8%) was significantly higher than in the MC kit group (29.0%) and the KT kit group (28.3%) (P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in the clinical pregnancy and implantation rates among the MC, KT, and Modified kit groups (37.2% vs. 30.2% vs. 39.6%; 21.9% vs. 18.8% vs. 27.4%, respectively) (P > 0.05). The high-quality embryo rate per warmed oocyte was significantly higher (23.4%) in the Modified kit group than in the other groups (P < 0.001). The embryo utilization and live birth rates per warmed oocyte were the highest in the Modified kit group, but not significantly (P > 0.05).
conclusionsModified vitrification media are efficient for oocyte vitrification and, with further verification, may be able to replace commercially available media in future clinical applications.
Indexed as
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.