ArticleJournal of ovarian research2021
Comparison of the number of oocytes obtained after ovarian stimulation between Chinese and Caucasian women undergoing in vitro fertilization using a standardized stimulation regime.
Article in Journal of ovarian research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02748278 (Comparison of the Number of Oocytes Obtained Between Chinese and Caucasian Women Undergoing in Vitro Fertilization Treatment With a Standard Ovarian Stimulation Regimen), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Comparison of the Number of Oocytes Obtained Between Chinese and Caucasian Women Undergoing in Vitro Fertilization Treatment With a Standard Ovarian Stimulation Regimen
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The prospect of artificial intelligence to personalize assisted reproductive technology.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Review
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
backgroundIn vitro fertilization (IVF) is a well-established method to treat various causes of infertility. Some previous retrospective studies suggested a lower ovarian response in Asian women compared to Caucasian women. However, the ovarian stimulation regimens were not standardized, potentially confounding the findings. The objective of this study is to compare the number of oocytes obtained after ovarian stimulation between Chinese and Caucasian women undergoing IVF using a standardized stimulation regimen.
methodsThis is a prospective cohort study conducted in two tertiary IVF units in Hong Kong, China and Sydney, Australia from October 2016 to August 2019. A total of 192 women aged 18-42 years with a body weight > 60 kg underwent IVF with a standard ovarian stimulation regimen of 150 micrograms corifollitropin alfa (Elonva®) followed by 200 IU follitropin beta (Puregon®) per day. The number of oocytes retrieved in Chinese women treated in the Hong Kong center was compared to that of Caucasian women treated in the Australian center.
resultsSerum AMH levels were similar between the two groups. Although women in the Chinese cohort were older and had a higher body mass index (BMI), longer duration of infertility and lower antral follicle count (AFC) than those in the Caucasian cohort in this study, no differences in the number of oocytes retrieved [11 (8-17) vs. 11 (6-17), p=0.29], total dosage and duration of stimulation and number of follicles aspirated were noted between the two ethnic cohorts. The peak estradiol level was greater in Chinese women than in Caucasian women. After controlling for age, BMI and AFC, ethnicity was a significant independent determinant of the number of oocytes obtained.
conclusionsChinese women had a higher number of oocytes after ovarian stimulation using a standardized stimulation regimen compared with Caucasian women undergoing IVF after controlling for age, BMI, AFC and AMH despite presenting later after a longer duration of infertility. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02748278.
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.