Trial reportReproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.)2023
A Monocentric Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial to Compare Single- and Double-Lumen Needles in Oocyte Retrieval Procedure in Assisted Reproductive Technologies.
Trial report in Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03611907 (Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Different Needles for Oocyte's Retrieval.), which is not on this 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.
Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Different Needles for Oocyte's Retrieval.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose was to determine any difference in outcomes, primarily in terms of number of retrieved oocytes per procedure, between two different needles used for oocytes retrieval procedure in Assisted Reproductive Technologies: the single-lumen needle (SLN) versus the double-lumen needle (DLN) with follicle flushing after aspiration. This randomized controlled trial included oocyte retrieval (OR) cycles for IVF and ICSI performed in 18 to 42-year-old women between March 2019 and January 2021 at a tertiary-care Fertility Center. A total of 200 ORs were randomized, 100 in each group. The mean number of retrieved oocytes was not different between groups (10.2 ± 6.5 for DLNs vs. 10.7 ± 7.0 for SLNs, p = 0.810). No significant differences were observed also in terms of number of retrieved oocytes/punctured follicles (83.0% ± 27.0% vs. 81.0% ± 22.0%, p = 0.916), number of retrieved oocytes/follicles at trigger (78.0% ± 29.0% vs. 78.0% ± 27.0%, p = 0.881), number of mature oocytes (7.6 ± 5.3 vs. 8.0 ± 5.1, p = 0.519), and pregnancy rate (27% vs. 23%, p = 0.514). However, the time required to retrieve each oocyte was longer using the DLN (1.5 ± 1.3 vs. 1.1 ± 0.9 minutes, p = 0.002). The present study confirmed the new perspectives on the sole use of SLNs in terms of saving time, without affecting the number of retrieved oocytes. Trial registration number and date of registration NCT03611907; July 26, 2018.
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.