ReviewJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2018
Ovarian manipulation in ART: going beyond physiological standards to provide best clinical outcomes.
Review in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Strategic Guidelines to Integrate Artificial Intelligence in Obstetrics and Gynecology: Best Practices and Ethical Considerations.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2025Guideline
- Extracellular vesicles in stem cell-based gonadal regeneration: mechanisms, therapeutic potential, and translational challenges.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Review
- In vitro fertilization impact on the risk of breast cancer.Archive of clinical cases · 2024Review
- Oocyte competence is independent of the ovulation trigger adopted: a large observational study in a setting that entails vitrified-warmed single euploid blastocyst transfer.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2021Observational
- Investigation of an efficient method of oocyte retrieval by dual stimulation for patients with cancer.Reproductive medicine and biologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Current knowledge on ovarian physiology has challenged the traditional concept of folliculogenesis, creating the basis for novel ovarian stimulation protocols in assisted reproduction technology. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the efficacy of novel clinical interventions that could aid clinicians in individualizing their protocols to patients' characteristics and personal situations. We conducted a literature review of the available evidence on new approaches for ovarian stimulation from both retrospective and prospective studies in the PubMed database. Here, we present some of the most important interventions, including follicle growth in the gonadotropin-independent and dependent stage, manipulation of estradiol production throughout ovarian stimulation, control of mid-cycle gonadotropin surges, and luteal phase support after different stimulation protocols and trigger agents. The latest research on IVF has moved physicians away from the classical physiology, allowing the development of new strategies to decouple organ functions from the female reproductive system and challenging the traditional concept of IVF.
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.