Trial reportJBRA assisted reproduction2021
Evaluation of follicular flushing with double lumen needle in patients undergoing assisted reproductive technology treatments.
Trial report in JBRA assisted reproduction, 2021. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Follicular flushing during oocyte retrieval in assisted reproductive techniques.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Single or Double-Lumen Aspiration Needle? Revisiting Choices for In Vitro Fertilization or Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection-A Critical Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- 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
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to investigate the possible impact of follicular flushing on the number of oocytes retrieved and oocytes in metaphase II in patients with poor ovarian response (POR) compared to direct aspiration.
methodsThis prospective, comparative, randomized single center study included 208 punctures of patients with POR, submitted to assisted reproduction technology (ART) treatments. Two groups were compared; one in which double lumen needles were used (Wallace DNS1733) for follicular flushing (n=105), and one in which single lumen needles were used (Wallace ONS1733) for direct aspiration (n=103), upon the observation of ≤ 5 follicles between 15-17 mm, ≤ 4 follicles with sizes greater than 18 mm on hCG day, and ≤ 7 recovered oocytes.
resultsThere were no differences in age (39.07±3.88 vs. 38.11±3.43); weight (61.73±17.53 vs. 65.96±15.44); AMH (0.63±0.59 vs. 0.94±0.97); stimulation days (9.57±1.87 vs. 10.29±2.82); estradiol levels (788.94±670.82 vs. 940.16±694.69); progesterone (617.29±319.76 vs. 561.18±486.78); or number of follicles with sizes ≥18 mm (1.84±0.95 vs. 2.07±1.09). Although gonadotropin totals (1678.28±798.52 vs. 2080.45±852.36; p=0.0008), number of aspirated oocytes (3.00±2.11 vs. 3.69±2.20; p=0.02), and number of metaphase II oocytes (2.20±1.64 vs. 2.99±1.88; p=0.02) were significantly different, oocyte / follicle ratio ≥15 mm (0.93 vs. 0.98) and metaphase II oocytes / follicles ≥15 mm (0.68 vs. 0.79) were similar in both groups. The failure to capture was 16% vs. 9.8%.
conclusionsConsidering that there was no difference in the oocyte per follicle ratio, follicular flushing did not increase the number of oocytes recovered from poor responders.
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.