ArticleCureus2024
Comparison of a Reduced Needle With a Thin Tip and a Standard Thin Needle (Same Width Overall) for Oocyte Retrieval.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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.
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAt our facility, oocyte retrieval had previously been performed with a 20-gauge standard needle that is uniformly thin overall (tSN); but recently, we have instead started using reduced needles, with a 20-gauge tip and 17-gauge body (RN). Until now, there have been comparisons between RN and thick standard needles, but there have been no comparisons between RN and tSN. The purpose of this study was to compare oocyte retrieval outcomes using RN with tSN. METHODOLOGY: Information on oocyte retrieval was extracted from the medical records of 304 cycles performed at our facility from January 2020 to December 2023. The oocyte retrieval outcomes of the two types of needles were compared retrospectively with respect to age, anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), procedure time, additional sedatives, number of follicles punctured, number of oocytes retrieved, number of oocytes fertilized, oocyte recovery rate, and fertilization rate.
resultsWhen AMH ≥ 1.2 ng/mL, the procedure time was 9.3 ± 3.7 and 12.1 ± 4.6 minutes in the RN and tSN groups, respectively (
conclusionsWithout diminished ovarian reserve, RN reduced procedure time and the need for additional sedatives compared to tSN. In addition, the number of oocytes fertilized per oocyte retrieval remained the same, indicating that oocyte retrieval performance was not affected.
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.