ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2017
Effect of follicular flushing on reproductive outcomes in patients with poor ovarian response undergoing assisted reproductive technology.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of follicular flushing with double lumen needle in patients undergoing assisted reproductive technology treatments.JBRA assisted reproduction · 2021Trial
- Follicular flushing leads to higher oocyte yield in monofollicular IVF: a randomized controlled trial.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2020Trial
- Factors related to infertility in Brazil and their relationship with success rates after assisted reproduction treatment: an integrative review.JBRA assisted reproduction · 2021Review
- Follicular flushing increases the number of oocytes retrieved in poor ovarian responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: a retrospective cohort study.BMC women's health · 2018Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of follicular flushing on the number of oocytes retrieved, oocyte maturity, fertilization rate, embryo development, and pregnancy rate of poor ovarian responders (POR).
methodsRetrospective study of 524 cycles of 384 patients with POR submitted to assisted reproductive technology (ART) and who had follicular flushing during oocyte retrieval was used in the study. We included patients with <5 oocytes at oocyte retrieval (POR group) and matching the Bologna criteria.
resultsPOR patients had a mean age of 38.2 ± 4.2 years. A total of 1355 follicles (mean = 3.5 ± 1.6) were aspirated and 1040 oocytes recovered, with 709 (68.2%) obtained by direct aspiration and 331 (31.8%) by follicular flushing. We found a difference between the total number of oocytes and the number of aspirated oocytes. Overall pregnancy rate was 22%. Association was observed between pregnancy rate and the number of oocytes retrieved, the number of MII oocytes, and the number of embryos transferred. The patients matching the Bologna criteria had a mean age of 38.9 ± 3.9 years. A total of 309 follicles were aspirated (mean = 3.1 ± 1.5) and 242 oocytes recovered, with 156 (64.5%) obtained by direct aspiration and 86 (35.5%) by follicular flushing. There was a significant difference between the total number of oocytes and the number of aspirated oocytes. Overall pregnancy rate was 12.1%. There was no association between the pregnancy rate and the number of oocytes retrieved, the number of MII, and the number of embryos.
conclusionsFollicular flushing might be a suitable alternative to increase the number of oocytes and pregnancy rates in patients with POR.
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.