ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2026
High live birth rate among recipient couples who require a replacement lot of vitrified donor oocytes.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo analyze characteristics and subsequent outcomes of patients who failed their first cycle using vitrified donor oocytes (no available blastocysts) and required a replacement lot to those who did not.
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study at a multicenter assisted reproductive technology practice. Patients were included if no blastocysts were suitable for transfer after using a vitrified donor oocyte lot from a large, national donor oocyte consortium between 2018 and 2022. Patients were excluded if they opted out of using a replacement lot for the exposure group, or if they had uterine factor and/or severe male factor infertility. They were compared to patients who did not require a replacement lot during the same time period for the primary outcome of live birth and secondary outcomes of fertilization, blastulation, and clinical pregnancy.
resultsThere were a total of 70 recipient couples who used a replacement lot compared to 1012 recipient couples who did not (controls). There were similar baseline characteristics in both cohorts, with most couples using partner sperm and opting out of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A). From patients using replacement lots, 41 (59%) achieved a clinical pregnancy with the immediate next cycle and 33 (47%) with a live birth. Twenty-nine (71% of pregnant couples) of these patients had a live birth with a new oocyte donor and the same sperm source. Four (10% of pregnant couples) had a live birth with a new oocyte donor and a new sperm source using donor sperm (with the partner as the prior sperm source). Twenty-nine couples did not get pregnant using a new oocyte donor and the primary lot sperm source. When compared to the control cohort, the patients who did not achieve a live birth with a replacement lot were older females with older male partners and had lower blastulation. However, after controlling for age, BMI, and number of embryos transferred, cycle outcomes were similar with no statistically significant difference in primary outcome of live birth (52% vs 53% controls, aRR 0.9 95% CI 0.8-1.1), or fertilization, blastulation, or clinical pregnancy. This was consistent in PGT-A-only cycles and non-PGT-A cycles.
conclusionsThis study found a high probability of live birth from a second attempt using a replacement oocyte lot. These data can reassure physicians and donor oocyte recipients to persevere in treatment following an unsuccessful oocyte lot outcome.
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.