Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32856073›Full record

Trial reportHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2020

Follicular flushing leads to higher oocyte yield in monofollicular IVF: a randomized controlled trial.

A S Kohl Schwartz, I Calzaferri, M Roumet, A Limacher, A Fink, A Wueest, S Weidlinger, V R Mitter, B Leeners, M Von Wolff

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02641808 (Does Follicular Flushing Improve the Outcome in Monofollicular IVF Therapy?), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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.

NCT02641808 phase3completednot on this map

Does Follicular Flushing Improve the Outcome in Monofollicular IVF Therapy?

TypeinterventionalSponsorInsel Gruppe AG, University Hospital BernRan2016 to 2020Enrolled164ConditionsInfertilityArmsfollicular flushing, no follicular flushing
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

A S Kohl SchwartzDivision of Gynecological Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Inselspital, 3010 Bern, Switzerland.
I CalzaferriDivision of Gynecological Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Inselspital, 3010 Bern, Switzerland.
M RoumetCTU Bern, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
A LimacherCTU Bern, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
A FinkDivision of Gynecological Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Inselspital, 3010 Bern, Switzerland.
A WueestDivision of Gynecological Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Inselspital, 3010 Bern, Switzerland.
S WeidlingerDivision of Gynecological Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Inselspital, 3010 Bern, Switzerland.
V R MitterDivision of Gynecological Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Inselspital, 3010 Bern, Switzerland.
B LeenersDepartment of Reproductive Endocrinology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
M Von WolffDivision of Gynecological Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Inselspital, 3010 Bern, Switzerland.
University of Bern · CHUniversity Hospital of Bern · CHUniversity Hospital of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

study questionDoes follicular flushing increase the number of mature oocytes in monofollicular IVF? SUMMARY ANSWER: Follicular flushing increases the number of mature oocytes in monofollicular IVF. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Flushing increases neither the oocyte yield nor the pregnancy rate in polyfollicular IVF or in poor responder patients. In monofollicular IVF, the effect of flushing has so far been addressed by two studies: (i) a prospective study with minimal stimulation IVF demonstrated an increased oocyte yield, and (ii) a retrospective study with natural cycle (NC)-IVF showed an increased oocyte yield and an increased transfer rate. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Randomized controlled trial including 164 women who were randomized for either aspiration with or without flushing from 2016 to 2019. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,

methodsInfertile women 18-42 years of age with an indication for IVF treatment at a university-based infertility unit. Women undergoing monofollicular IVF were randomized to either follicular aspiration only or follicular aspiration directly followed by five follicular flushes at a 1:1 ratio. The intervention was done without anaesthesia, using a gauge 19 single-lumen needle. Flushing volume was calculated (sphere formula) based on the size of the follicle. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 164 women were included; 81 were allocated to 'aspiration only' and 83 to additional 'flushing'. Primary analysis was based on the intention-to-treat: oocyte yield, defined as the collected mature oocyte rate, was higher (n = 64/83, 77.1%) in the flushing group compared to the aspiration only group (n = 48/81, 59.3%, adjusted risk difference (RD): 18.2% (95% CI 3.9-31.7%), P-value = 0.02). In the flushing group, most oocytes were retrieved within the first three flushes (63/83, 75.8%). Fertilization rate was higher in the flushing group (n = 53/83, 63.9% vs n = 38/81, 46.9%; adjusted RD: 16.8% (96% CI 1.5-31.4%), P = 0.045). Transfer rate was also higher in the flushing group (n = 52/83, 62.7% vs n = 38/81, 46.9%; RD: 15.71 (95% CI 0.3-30.3%)), but the difference was not significant (P = 0.06). The clinical pregnancy rate n = 9/83 versus n = 9/81 (RD: -0.3% (95% CI -9.9% to 9.5%)) and live birth rate n = 7/83 versus n = 8/81 (RD: -1.5% (95% CI -10.4% to 7.1%)) were not significantly different between the flushing and the aspiration group. The median duration of the intervention was significantly longer with flushing (2.38 min; quartiles 2.0, 2.7) versus aspiration only (0.43 min; quartiles 0.3, 0.5) (P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in the mean (±SD) visual analogue scales pain score between the follicular flushing (3.4 ± 1.8) and the aspiration group (3.1 ± 1.89). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Blinding of the procedure was not possible. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE

findingsOur study proved that flushing of single follicles in NC-IVF increases the oocyte yield. In contrast to polyfollicular IVF flushing seems to be beneficial in a monofollicular setting if the technique used in our study (single-lumen needle, 5 flushings with flushing volume adaptation) is applied. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was funded by the financial sources of the division and in part by a research grant provided by NMS Biomedical SA, Switzerland. The company did not have any roles in design or conduct of the study or in the preparation of the manuscript. The authors have no other conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02641808. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 29 December 2015. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT: 22 August 2016.

Indexed as

Infertility, FemaleOocyte RetrievalFemaleFertilization in VitroFlushingHumansOocytesPregnancyPregnancy RateProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesSwitzerlandfollicular flushingIVFlive birth ratemonofollicular IVFoocyte yieldsingle-lumen needle

Identifiers

PMID32856073
PMCPMC7518713
OpenAlexW3081706147

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.