ArticleCureus2025
Comparison of Cumulative Live Birth Rates Between Fresh and Vitrified Donor Oocytes.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fatty acids and L-carnitine supplementation in vitrification media improves oocyte mitochondrial function and inner cell mass in mouse blastocysts: a pilot study.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Article
- Association of paternal age with embryological outcomes and β-hCG positivity in women with polycystic ovary syndrome undergoing ICSI: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Beyond aneuploidy: embryo morphology, maternal age, and miscarriage dynamics in PGT-A selected single embryo transfer.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Article
- Cryopreservation of Mammalian Oocytes: Slow Cooling and Vitrification Approaches.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Oocyte donation is a well-established treatment for age-related infertility, diminished ovarian reserve, and other reproductive challenges. The introduction of vitrification has expanded its feasibility by enabling oocyte cryobanking, reducing logistical constraints, and improving accessibility. However, debate persists regarding whether clinical outcomes differ between fresh and vitrified donor oocytes, particularly when embryos undergo double vitrification at both the oocyte and blastocyst stages. This study aims to compare cumulative live birth rates between fresh and cryopreserved donor oocytes in oocyte donation cycles. Methodology This retrospective cohort study analyzed 214 oocyte recipient cycles conducted at Assisting Nature Fertility Center from January 2018 to January 2023. Group A (n=112) received fresh donor oocytes, while Group B (n=102) received vitrified donor oocytes. Key outcomes included fertilization rate, blastulation rate, cumulative positive β-human chorionic gonadotropin rate, cumulative clinical pregnancy rate, and cumulative live birth rate. Statistical comparisons were performed using t-tests and chi-square tests, with significance set at p<0.05. Results Oocyte survival after thawing was 96%, with similar fertilization (87% vs. 84%) and blastulation rates (70% vs. 65%) between fresh and vitrified oocytes, respectively. Live birth rates after the first embryo transfer were comparable between Group A (59.8%) and Group B (58.8%; p>0.05). Cumulative live birth rates, including pregnancies from second and third embryo transfers, were 69.6% in Group A and 66.7% in Group B, with no statistically significant difference (p>0.05). Despite a slight trend toward lower initial pregnancy rates in the vitrified donor oocyte group, cumulative outcomes remained comparable between the two groups. Conclusions Both fresh and cryopreserved oocyte donation programs produce similar fertilization, blastulation, and cumulative live birth rates. The findings suggest that double vitrification (oocyte and embryo stages) does not negatively impact embryo viability or pregnancy success. Oocyte vitrification should be considered a routine option in oocyte donation programs if laboratories ensure their vitrification protocols yield outcomes comparable to fresh oocyte cycles.
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.