ArticleF&S reports2021
Real-world experience with intravaginal culture using INVOCELL: an alternative model for infertility treatment.
Article in F&S reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of reproductive technologies for shared conception in same-sex female couples.Fertility and sterility · 2024Pooled it
- 'It's about time': policymakers' and health practitioners' perspectives on implementing fertility care in the Gambian health system.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Good practice recommendations on add-ons in reproductive medicine†.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- Comparison of Treatment Outcomes among Sibling Oocytes Using Different Culture Systems-Conventional IVF versus INVOcell Device-And Evaluation of INVOcell User Satisfaction: The INVOcIVF Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- No longer a new journal.F&S reports · 2021Article
- Intravaginal culture using INVOCELL: Is it a viable treatment option for infertility?F&S reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe the current practice indications, methodology, and outcomes from a real-world experience of intravaginal culture (IVC) using INVOCELL.
designA descriptive study outlining real-world experience with INVOCELL that addresses patient selection, ovarian stimulation, embryology laboratory practices, and outcomes.
settingFive fertility centers in Missouri, Texas, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. PATIENTS: Four hundred sixty-three patients undergoing 526 cycles.
interventionIVC using INVOCELL.
main outcome measuresCumulative pregnancy rate and live births. Secondary outcomes of interest included percent good quality embryos.
resultsIVC with INVOCELL was primarily used in women <38 years with anti-Mullerian hormone level >0.8 ng/mL. The mean numbers of retrieved oocytes ranged from 9.2 to 16. Mean numbers of oocytes and sperm-injected oocytes loaded per INVOCELL ranged from a mean of 6.4-9.5 with a reported maximum of 34 oocytes loaded into the device. Most (95%) of the embryos were transferred on day 5. The mean blastocyst recovery per oocyte loaded into the device ranged from 19% to 34%; mean cumulative live birth plus ongoing pregnancy rates ranged from 29% to 53% per cycle start and 40% to 61% per transfer.
conclusionsThis study of IVC using INVOCELL as an alternative model for infertility treatment confirms its utility as a viable alternative to standard incubator-based in vitro fertilization. The technology is compatible within the current framework of practice patterns and, when appropriately used, results in acceptable blastocyst recovery and live birth rates. Further use of INVOCELL in other clinical situations is warranted.
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.