ArticleF&S reports2026
Unlocking new horizons in egg donation: clinical and logistical benefits of double ovarian stimulation.
Article in F&S reports, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To study the clinical and logistical benefits of double ovarian stimulation (DuoStim) in egg donation. Design: Prospective and observational study. Subjects: Sixty healthy egg donors aged 18-35, all with regular menstrual cycles, normal karyotype, and adequate ovarian reserve. Exposure: Each donor underwent two consecutive ovarian stimulations and oocyte retrievals within a single menstrual cycle, applying a standardized protocol. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was the number of oocytes retrieved per stimulation. Secondary outcomes included blastulation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, implantation rate, and clinical miscarriage rate. Results: The mean number of oocytes retrieved was significantly higher in the first stimulation compared with the second one (19.8 ± 2.0 vs. 13.3 ± 2.2). Similarly, the number of metaphase II oocytes was greater in the first stimulation (16.4 ± 1.8 vs. 11.5 ± 2.1). Despite the reduced oocyte yield, oocyte survival rates after vitrification were comparable between stimulations (91.8% follicular vs. 90.5% luteal). Usable blastocyst rates were also similar (42.8% vs. 49.1%), and clinical outcomes did not differ significantly: implantation rates were 69.8% (follicular) and 66.1% (luteal), and clinical pregnancy rates were 71.2% and 66.7%, respectively. The miscarriage rate was slightly lower in the follicular phase (7.7% vs. 12.4%), but this difference was not statistically significant. No cases of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome or other serious adverse events were observed. Conclusions: DuoStim is a safe and efficient approach in egg donation, maximizing cycle efficiency and convenience by enabling two retrievals in a single cycle. Although the second stimulation yields fewer oocytes, oocyte and embryo quality remain unaffected. These findings support the use of DuoStim in donor programs, especially where time and resource optimization are priorities.
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.