Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31844683›Full record

ArticleHuman reproduction open2019

Recommendations for good practice in ultrasound: oocyte pick up

ESHRE Working Group on Ultrasound in ART, Arianna D'Angelo, Costas Panayotidis, Nazar Amso, Roberto Marci, Roberto Matorras, Mircea Onofriescu, Ahmet Berkiz Turp, Frank Vandekerckhove, Zdravka Veleva and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human reproduction open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

57 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. ESHRE recommendations on Good Practice in the IVF laboratory†.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2026
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

12 authors.

ESHRE Working Group on Ultrasound in ART
Arianna D'AngeloWales Fertility Institute, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1505-8489
Costas PanayotidisBourn Hall IVF Center, Wickford, Essex, UK.
Nazar AmsoCardiff University, Cardiff, South Glamorgan, UK.
Roberto MarciDepartment of Morphology Surgery and Experimental Medicine, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Emilia-Romagna, Italy.
Roberto MatorrasInstituto Valenciano de Infertilidad, IVI Bilbao, Bilbao, Spain; Human Reproduction Unit, Cruces University Hospital, Bilbao, Spain; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Basque Country University, Spain; BioCruces Research Center Bilbao, Bilbao, Spain.
Mircea OnofriescuDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy "Gr.T.Popa", Iasie, Romania.
Ahmet Berkiz TurpDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, IVF Unit, Harran University, Sanliurfa 63300, Turkey.
Frank VandekerckhoveDepartment for Reproductive Medicine, University hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Zdravka VelevaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Nathalie VermeulenESHRE Central Office, Grimbergen, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-8046-6799
Veljko VlaisavljevicIVF Adria Consulting, Maribor, Slovenia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

study questionWhat is good practice in ultrasound (US), and more specifically during the different stages of transvaginal oocyte retrieval, based on evidence in the literature and expert opinion on US practice in ART? SUMMARY ANSWER: This document provides good practice recommendations covering technical aspects of US-guided transvaginal oocyte retrieval (oocyte pick up: OPU) formulated by a group of experts after considering the published data, and including the preparatory stage of OPU, the actual procedure and post-procedure care. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: US-guided transvaginal OPU is a widely performed procedure, but standards for best practice are not available. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: A working group (WG) collaborated on writing recommendations on the practical aspects of transvaginal OPU. A literature search for evidence of the key aspects of the procedure was carried out. Selected papers ( PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING

methodsThe WG members considered the following key points in the papers: whether US practice standards were explained; to what extent the OPU technique was described and whether complications or incidents and how to prevent such events were reported. In the end, only 108 papers could be used to support the recommendations in this document, which focused on transvaginal OPU. Laparoscopic OPU, transabdominal OPU and OPU for IVM were outside the scope of the study. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: There was a scarcity of studies on the actual procedural OPU technique. The document presents general recommendations for transvaginal OPU, and specific recommendations for its different stages, including prior to, during and after the procedure. Most evidence focussed on comparing different equipment (needles) and on complications and risks, including the risk of infection. For these topics, the recommendations were largely based on the results of the studies. Recommendations are provided on equipment and materials, possible risks and complications, audit and training. One of the major research gaps was training and competence. This paper has also outlined a list of research priorities (including clarification on the value or full blood count, antibiotic prophylaxis and flushing, and the need for training and proficiency). LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: The recommendations of this paper were mostly based on clinical expertise, as at present, only a few clinical trials have focused on the oocyte retrieval techniques, and almost all available data are observational. In addition, studies focusing on OPU were heterogeneous with significant difference in techniques used, which made drafting conclusions and recommendations based on these studies even more challenging. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE

findingsThese recommendations complement previous guidelines on the management of good laboratory practice in ART. Some useful troubleshooting/checklist recommendations are given for easy implementation in clinical practice. These recommendations aim to contribute to the standardization of a rather common procedure that is still performed with great heterogeneity. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The meetings of the WG were funded by ESHRE. The other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NA.ESHRE Pages content is not externally peer reviewed. The manuscript has been approved by the Executive Committee of ESHRE.

Indexed as

ARTcompetencegood practiceguidelineneedleoocyte pick upoocyte retrievalqualityrecommendationsultrasound

Identifiers

PMID31844683
PMCPMC6903452

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.