ArticleJBRA assisted reproduction2023
A sharing oocyte donation program: a 15-year cohort stud.
Article in JBRA assisted reproduction, 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.
- Emotional impact and psychological aspects involving treatments with donated oocytes.JBRA assisted reproduction · 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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate clinical and laboratory outcomes of oocyte donation cycles and compare the results from donors and recipients.
methodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted at a reproductive medicine center. A 586 first fresh oocyte donation cycles, performed from 01/2002 to 12/2017 were included. The outcomes of 290 cycles from donors and 296 from recipients, resulting in 473 fresh embryo transfers, were analyzed. The oocyte division was equally made, whereas, at an odd amount, the donor always had a preference. The data were collected from an electronic database, and analyzed using Chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, Mann-Whitney U-test or Student t-test depending on the data distribution, and multivariate logistic regression, considering p<0.05.
resultsThe main results comparing donor and recipient, were, respectively: fertilization rate (72.0±21.4 vs. 74.6±24.2, p<0.001), implantation rate (46.2% vs. 48.5%, p=0.67); clinical pregnancy rate (41.9% vs. 37.7%, p=0.39), live birth rates by transfer (33.3 vs. 37.7, p=0.54).
conclusionsOocyte donation is often the way donors can access in vitro fertilization, and for recipients seems to be a good option for pregnancy. Demographic and clinical characteristics have a secondary role in oocyte donors under 35 years and patient without comorbidities under 50 years and were not associated with pregnancy outcomes, emphasizing the power of oocyte quality on the success of intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment. An oocyte-sharing program that offers good and comparable results is fair and worth being encouraged.
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.