ArticleReproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.)2021
Optimal Oocyte Number in Controlled Ovarian Stimulation with Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Agonist/Antagonist and Day 3 Fresh Embryo Transfer.
Article in Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of retrieved oocyte number on IVF outcomes in polycystic ovary syndrome: a retrospective cohort study.Journal of endocrinological investigation · 2026Article
- Pregnancy outcome in long- versus short-acting gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist cycles in participants with normal ovarian reserve: An RCT.International journal of reproductive biomedicine · 2023Article
- Gonadotropin Stimulation Reduces the Implantation and Live Birth Rate but Not the Miscarriage Rate of Embryos Transferred When Compared to Unstimulated In Vitro Fertilization.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to investigate the optimal number of oocytes retrieved in normal responders with the gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist (GnRHant) protocol in comparison with the GnRH agonist (GnRHa) long protocol. This retrospective study is based on a single-center cohort including 657 fresh cycles with day 3 embryo transfer using the GnRHa long protocol and the GnRHant flexible protocol at the fertility clinic of a university hospital between 2005 and 2019. The rate ratios (RR) of clinical pregnancy were evaluated using log-binomial regression depending on the categories by the number of retrieved oocytes and pituitary suppression methods. After controlling for age, body mass index, and basal follicle-stimulating hormone, women with 10-11 oocytes retrieved demonstrated a significantly higher chance of clinical pregnancy compared to the reference group (4-5 oocytes) (RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.12-2.53). However, retrieval of more than 11 oocytes did not show a significant difference in pregnancy rates (PR) from the reference group. In women treated with GnRHant, a significantly higher clinical PR was also observed in women with 10-11 oocytes retrieved compared to the reference group (RR 1.90, 95% CI 1.05-3.42). In women treated with GnRHa long protocol, a higher probability of clinical pregnancy was observed (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.98-1.73) in the group with 8-11 oocytes retrieved and it demonstrated borderline statistical significance (P = 0.07). In summary, the optimal number of oocytes for maximizing the rate of a clinical pregnancy is different according to the method of pituitary suppression. Too many oocytes do not seem to be beneficial for achieving better clinical outcomes.
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.