ArticleJournal of ovarian research2025
Improved clinical outcomes with a modified warming protocol in donor oocyte cycles.
Article in Journal of ovarian research, 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.
- Only time will tell.F&S reports · 2026Article
- Spindle-to-oocyte light retardance ratio as a noninvasive biomarker for oocyte quality assessment: a prospective cohort study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 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
Abstract
backgroundRecent studies have attempted to improve laboratory efficiency while preserving clinical outcomes by shortening the time to warm cryopreserved embryos, though it is still unclear for oocytes. This study thus aimed to evaluate the effects of a modified warming protocol (MWP) on embryonic development and pregnancy outcomes of vitrified donor oocytes.
methodsThe data of this retrospective cohort study were collected from women who underwent donor cycles (fresh or vitrified oocytes) at Lee Women's Hospital, Taiwan, from January 2019 to August 2024. The sample included 13,103 donor oocytes, divided into three groups: conventional warming protocol (CWP) group (n = 8506), MWP group (n = 980), and fresh group (n = 3617).
resultsSurvival rates after oocyte warming were similar between the CWP and MWP groups (93.7% vs. 93.9%, P > 0.05). Oocyte degeneration rates post-intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) were similar for vitrified-warmed and fresh oocytes (2.7-3.4% vs. 2.8%). Normal fertilization was lower for vitrified-warmed oocytes (79.5-79.6% vs. 83.0%, P < 0.05), while abnormal fertilization was higher (9.1-10.1% vs. 3.3%). Blastocyst formation and usable blastocyst formation were lower in the CWP group (57.5% and 35.4%) compared to MWP (77.3% and 51.4%) and fresh groups (69.2% and 48.5%). Ongoing pregnancy/live birth was higher in the MWP group than in the CWP group (66.7% vs. 50.4%, P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed a positive association between MWP and usable blastocyst formation (adjusted incidence rate ratio = 1.423, 95% CI = 1.268 to 1.597, P < 0.001), as well as ongoing pregnancy/live birth (adjusted odds ratio = 1.899, 95% CI = 1.002 to 3.6, P < 0.05).
conclusionsThis study suggests that the MWP enhances the blastocyst formation potential and pregnancy outcomes of vitrified-warmed oocytes, making it similar to that of fresh oocytes. Thus, the MWP may replace the CWP as the standard protocol for optimizing donor cycle outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.