ArticleTurkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology2018
The effect of the pooling method on the live birth rate in poor ovarian responders according to the Bologna criteria.
Article in Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fresh transfer of an average quality slow growing day-3 embryo versus frozen transfer in a poor responder: a clinical management dilemma.JBRA assisted reproduction · 2022Article
- Embryo Banking with Mild Ovarian Stimulation for IVF: An Alternative Strategy for Poor Prognosis Patients.Journal of reproduction & infertilityArticle
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePooling is an alternative method to achieve in vitro fertilization outcomes. This study was to investigate the effect of pooling method on pregnancy outcomes in poor responder patients according to Bologna criteria. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo hundred-fifty five poor responder patients were enrolled in this study. Pooling embryo transfer (ET) group had 110 and fresh ET group had 145 patients.
resultsAlthough, age was similar between both treatment groups (p=0.31), antral follicle count (p<0.001), total number of retrieved oocyte (p<0.001), total metaphase II oocyte count (p<0.001), number of stimulation cycles (p<0.001), were significantly different between the groups. The day of ET were similiar between two groups (p=0.72) but the number of ET procedure was significantly higher in pooling ET group compared to fresh ET (p<0.001). Positive pregnancy test [35/110 (32%) vs 53/145 (37%)] (p=0.43) and clinical pregnacy rates [31/110 (28%) vs 49/145 (34%)] (p=0.33) were similar between groups, whereas, implantation [31/191 (16%) vs 49/198 (25%)] (p=0.03) and live birth rates [15/110 (14%) vs 36/145 (25%)] (p=0.04) were significantly higher in fresh ET group. Despite that, abortion rates were significantly higher in pooling ET group [16/31 (52%) vs 13/49 (27%)] (p=0.04). Binary logistic regression analyese has revealed no effect of variables on live birth rates.
conclusionEven though, pooling strategy seems to have a slight positive effect on pregnancy outcomes, there is no benefical effect on live birth rates. Furthermore, this strategy is increasing the abortion rates in parallel with clinical pregnancy rates.
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.