Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28645286›Full record

ReviewReproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E2017

The myths surrounding mild stimulation in vitro fertilization (IVF).

Raoul Orvieto, Valeria Stella Vanni, Norbert Gleicher

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Observational
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Raoul OrvietoInfertility and IVF unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Ramat Gan, Israel. Raoul.orvieto@sheba.health.gov.il.
Valeria Stella VanniInfertility and IVF unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Norbert GleicherThe Center for Human Reproduction, New York, N.Y, 10021, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

So-called mild controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (mCOH) has in recent years increased in popularity, claiming to be safer and more patient-friendly, while also improving in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes. We here challenge the International Society for Mild Approaches in Assisted Reproduction (ISMAAR) definition of mild stimulation, and especially address four fundamental issues, where our review found conventional COH (cCOH) advantageous over mCOH. They are: prevalence of severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), oocyte/embryo quality, pregnancy/live birth rates, and cost. We conclude that an objective review of the literature does not support the routine utilization of mCOH in assisted reproduction.

Indexed as

FemaleFertilization in VitroHumansOocytesOvarian Hyperstimulation SyndromeOvulation InductionPregnancyPregnancy OutcomePregnancy RateSperm Injections, IntracytoplasmicAneuploidyCost-effectivenessIn vitro fertilization (IVF)Live birth ratesOvarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS)Ovarian stimulationPregnancy rates

Identifiers

PMID28645286
PMCPMC5482955

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.