ArticleJournal of human reproductive sciences
Follicular Flushing Versus Direct Aspiration at Oocyte Retrieval in Poor Responders Undergoing
Article in Journal of human reproductive sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Follicular flushing during oocyte retrieval in assisted reproductive techniques.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Impact of Systematic Follicular Flushing on Egg Retrieval and Embryo Quality in IVF-ICSI Cycles: A Controlled Study?Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies comparing follicular flushing versus aspiration during oocyte retrieval in IVF cycles.Contraception and reproductive medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis study aims to study the effect of follicular flushing at oocyte retrieval on Assisted Reproductive Technique (ART) outcomes in poor responders undergoing SETTINGS AND
designA prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted in the ART center of our hospital. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 71 patients who responded poorly during controlled ovarian stimulation were recruited. Patients were randomized to follicular flushing or to direct aspiration group. The primary outcomes of the study were the total number of oocytes retrieved and the number of metaphase (M II) oocytes retrieved. Secondary outcomes were anesthesia time, procedure time, fertilization rate, cleavage rate, total number of embryos, number of embryos transferred, number of Grade 1 embryos, failed oocyte recovery, failed fertilization, implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, and live birth rate. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Chi-square test and Student's
resultsThe total number of oocytes retrieved, number of M II oocytes, fertilization rate, cleavage rate, total number of embryos, number of Grade 1 embryos, failed oocyte recovery, failed fertilization, implantation rate, miscarriage rate, and live birth rate were comparable between the two groups. The anesthesia and procedure time was significantly higher in the flushing group.
conclusionsFollicular flushing does not result in a significant improvement in the ART outcomes despite increasing procedure and anesthesia times.Trial registration number CTRI/2017/07/009062.
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.