ReviewLife (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Single or Double-Lumen Aspiration Needle? Revisiting Choices for In Vitro Fertilization or Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection-A Critical Review.
Review in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transvaginal ultrasound-guided follicle aspiration remains the gold standard for oocyte retrieval in assisted reproductive technology (ART). This procedure employs either a single-lumen aspiration needle (SLN) or double-lumen aspiration needle (DLN), both of which are effective modalities for oocyte retrieval. The primary objective of this review is to systematically compare the impact and clinical outcomes associated with the use of SLN versus DLN in women undergoing ART. A systematic literature search was conducted across two databases, PubMed and Google Scholar, encompassing publications from their inception until May 2025, and articles published in English. A total of five studies were included in the final analysis. The oocyte yield and the number of MII oocyte did not differ significantly between the groups. Procedural duration was markedly shorter in the SLN group compared to the DLN group. No significant differences were observed in procedure-related complications across groups. Two randomized controlled trials reported comparable fertilization rates and numbers of high-quality embryos between the two needle types. Additionally, clinical pregnancy rates, ongoing pregnancy rates, and live birth rates were similar between the SLN and DLN groups. In conclusion, the utilization ofan SLN for oocyte retrieval demonstrates comparable efficacy to that of a DLN.
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.