ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2023
Comparison of pregnancy outcomes of cervical mucus washing with physiologic saline solution or G-Rinse medium solution, in elective single-embryo transfers.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Embryo Transfer Procedural Parameters Do Not Predict IVF Cycle Outcome.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare the pregnancy outcomes between physiologic saline and G-Rinse medium solution for cervical mucus washing, in fresh elective single-embryo transfers (ET) in women under the age of 37. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis was a retrospective data analysis performed in a single in vitro fertilization (IVF) center between February 2018 and November 2021. Women younger than 37 years who underwent single elective ET were included and all women had anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) levels ≥ 1.5 ng/ml. Age, body mass index (BMI), AMH levels, and pregnancy outcomes as clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and live birth rate (LBR) were analyzed.
resultsStudy population consisted of 75 women in the G-Rinse medium solution group and 97 women in the physiologic saline group. Clinical pregnancy rate was 58.7% and 61.9% in the G-Rinse medium solution group and saline group, respectively (p = 0.673), and LBR was calculated as 41.3% and 47.4% in the G-Rinse medium solution group and saline group, respectively (p = 0.430). A log-binomial regression model was used and the model was adjusted for BMI to evaluate the effect of the cervical mucus washing method on the pregnancy outcomes. There was an estimated 5% decrease in the relative risk for CPR in the G-Rinse medium solution group compared to the saline group (95% CI: 0.74 to 1.2, p = 0.673). There was an estimated 13% reduction in the relative risk for LBR in the G-Rinse medium solution group compared to the saline group (95% CI: 0.62 to 1.23, p = 0.430). They were both statistically not significant.
conclusionIn our study, the replacement of using G-Rinse medium solution to physiologic saline solution for cervical cleaning did not change CPR and LBR outcomes. Using physiologic saline solution can be a good alternative approach for ectocervical washing during embryo transfer in selected population because of its lower costs, easy accessibility, and common use.
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.