ArticleClinical and experimental reproductive medicine2016
Comparison of static culture, micro-vibration culture, and micro-vibration culture with co-culture in poor ovarian responders.
Article in Clinical and experimental reproductive medicine, 2016. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study was conducted to compare the effects of static culture, dynamic culture, and the combination of dynamic culture with specialized surfaces involving co-culture on human embryonic development. Embryos cultured using conventional static culture (SC) techniques served as a control group. We compared dynamic culture using micro-vibration culture (MVC) and micro-vibration with co-culture (MCoC), in which autologous cumulus cells were used as a specialized surface.
methodsWe conducted a chart review of patients who were treated between January 2011 and November 2014 in order to compare embryonic development rates and pregnancy rates among the groups. Zygotes were cultured in micro-droplets, and embryos were subsequently selected for transfer. Some surplus embryos were cryopreserved, and the others were cultured for blastocyst development. A micro-vibrator was set at the frequency of 42 Hz for duration of 5 seconds per 60 minutes to facilitate embryo development.
resultsNo significant differences among the groups were present in patient's characteristics. However, the clinical pregnancy rates were significantly higher in the MVC group and the MCoC group than in the SC group. No significant differences were found in the blastocyst development rate between the SC group and the MVC group, but the blastocyst development rate in the MCoC group was significantly higher than in the SC and MVC groups.
conclusionThe clinical pregnancy rate was significantly increased by the application of micro-vibration to the embryonic cultures of poor responders. The blastocyst development rate was significantly increased by the application of MCoC to surplus embryos.
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.