ArticleContraception and reproductive medicine2025
A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies comparing follicular flushing versus aspiration during oocyte retrieval in IVF cycles.
Article in Contraception and reproductive medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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.
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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Bladder flap creation during cesarean delivery. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the value of follicular flushing during ovum pick up compared to follicular aspiration in IVF cycles. SEARCH STRATEGY: Screening of PubMed, Web Of Science, Cochrane, Scopus, and clinical trials registry from inception to October 2024. The search key words included follicular flushing, follicle aspiration, ovum pick up, oocyte retrieval, IVF, and their MeSH terms. SELECTION CRITERIA: This review included all RCTs that evaluated the use of follicular flushing during ovum pick-up. Seventeen studies including 2218 participants (1124 were subjected to follicular flushing and 1094 subjected to follicular aspiration) were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The extracted data included the settings of the study, the number and characteristics of participants, intervention details including the number of flushes, and the suction pressure used, outcome parameters including number of retrieved oocytes, the oocyte/ follicle ratio, the number of MII oocytes, the time of the procedure, the fertilization, implantation, clinical pregnancy, chemical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, live birth, miscarriage and cancellation rates, and risk of bias assessment. MAIN
resultsThe number of retrieved and MII oocytes were evaluated in 14 and 11 studies with 1920 and 1588 participants and revealed a mean difference (MD) of 0.03 and 0.16 with [-0.50, 0.57] and [-0.29, 0.61] 95% CI (P value =0.9 and 0.48, I
conclusionFollicular flushing during oocyte retrieval did not improve the number of retrieved oocytes, the oocyte retrieved over the aspirated follicles ration, the number of MII oocytes, the fertilization rate, implantation rate, clinical pregnancy, chemical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy/livebirth, and miscarriage rates and associated with significant prolongation of the procedure. Cycle cancellation was significantly improved with follicular flushing in women with poor ovarian response.
trial registrationRegistration number CRD42024600698 date of registration 23/10/2024.
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.