ReviewFrontiers in endocrinology2023
Efficiency and safety of vitrification of surplus oocytes following superovulation: a comparison of different clinical indications of oocyte cryopreservation in IVF/ICSI cycles.
Review in Frontiers in endocrinology, 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.
- Cumulative live births and predictive factors of emergency oocyte cryopreservation: a retrospective cohort study.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of utilizing the small number of remaining vitrified oocytes after the failure of adequate fresh sibling oocytes. The outcome of present study would provide more comprehensive information about possible benefits or disadvantage to cryopreserve supernumerary oocytes for patients who have plenty oocytes retrieved. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 791 IVF/ICSI cycles using 6344 oocytes that had been vitrified in the Reproductive Hospital affiliated to Shandong University between January 2013 and December 2019.They were divided into three groups: SOC group (supernumerary oocytes cryopreservation), relative-MOC group (relative male factor-oocyte cryopreservation), and absolute-MOC group (absolute male factor-oocyte cryopreservation). Laboratory and clinical outcomes were analysed, and multivariate regression analysis was used to study the effect of different indications of vitrification on CLBR. Results: The CLBR was highest in absolute-MOC, and lowest in SOC (39.0% vs 28.9%, P=0.006); however, after adjusting for confounding factors, the difference was not statistically significant. Multivariable regression analysis showed no impact of indications of vitrified oocytes on CLBR according to controlled age, BMI, preservation duration, use of donor sperm or not, use of PESA/TESA or not, number of oocytes retrieved, number of oocytes thawed, and oocyte survival rate. The preliminary data of safety showed no significant differences in the perinatal and neonatal outcoms after ET and FET between the SOC and MOC groups. Conclusion: Different indications of vitrification did not affect CLBR. The CLBR of vitrified oocytes for different indications was correlated with age and number of warmed oocytes. For women who have plenty oocytes retrieved, the strategy of cryopreserving a small number of oocytes is a valuable option and might benefit them in the future. Additional data from autologous oocyte vitrification research employing a large-scale and variable-controlled methodology with extending follow-up will complement and clarify the current results.
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.