Observational studyJournal of ultrasound2025
Two-dimensional ultrasound results in underestimation of the ovarian follicle size compared to automated three-dimensional imaging in women undergoing IVF.
Observational study in Journal of ultrasound, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- The relationship between oocyte maturation and follicle size: A comparative analysis of 2D and 3D ultrasound.Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2026Article
- Follicular sphericity based on three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound algorithms predicts ovarian responsiveness to in vitro fertilization.Journal of ovarian research · 2025Observational
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTraditionally, for the assessment of follicle growth during IVF, two-dimensional (2D) transvaginal ultrasound (US) is used. In the past few years three-dimensional (3D) US has also been introduced.
objectivesTo compare follicular sizes between 2 and 3D ultrasound imaging on the final day of controlled ovarian stimulation.
methodsA prospective observational cohort study including 121 women undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) between January 2017 and July 2018. All women were assessed by transvaginal 2D and 3D ultrasonography to measure ovarian follicle dimensions on the final day of COS.
resultsThe mean difference in paired comparisons between the 3D and 2D US measurements in 25 women with monofollicular development was + 1.6 ± 2.5 mm for the x-dimension and + 1.7 ± 2.4 mm for the y-dimension; and in the total number of 1197 paired measurements of follicles the mean difference + 2.1 ± 3.3 mm and + 1.8 ± 3.9 mm for the x- and y-dimension respectively. In all cases the paired t-test showed that differences were statistically significant (p < 0.01). Further it was conjectured that the 2D underestimation results from the inherent difficulty to precisely place the US probe simultaneously on the perpendicular maximal of the x and y follicle diameters, leading to measurement errors that, by theory, are normally distributed. Running Monte-Carlo simulations based on these measurement errors it was found that both the mean difference and standard deviation are of the same magnitude as the ones found in real measurements, thus proving the conjecture.
conclusionsThe utilisation of 3D US results in different measurements of the follicular dimensions, and volumes, when compared to conventional 2D US. The differences in the x- and y-dimensions may affect the outcome of an IVF cycle as they are used to define the day of triggering final oocyte maturation, which is associated with the yield of mature oocytes and the probability of live birth.
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.