ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Transrectal
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objectives: Oocyte freezing can be performed for up to ten years, with regulations regarding storage duration and age limits varying by country, including a maximum age of up to 50 years in some regions. The standard method for oocyte retrieval is transvaginal ultrasound; however, it is not suitable for patients with an intact hymen, particularly in regions with cultural and religious considerations, such as the Middle East. For these patients, transrectal ultrasound-assisted retrieval represents a safe alternative. This study evaluates transrectal oocyte retrieval and compares it with conventional ultrasound-guided transvaginal aspiration. Materials and methods: This prospective observational study involved 120 patients undergoing oocyte cryopreservation, divided into two groups: transrectal oocyte retrieval (TROR) for patients with intact hymens, and transvaginal oocyte retrieval (TVOR) for those without. The study compared follicle and oocyte retrieval counts between these groups, using regression analyses to evaluate the impact of variables such as age, body mass index (BMI), anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), anesthesia duration, procedural time, and peak estradiol (E2) on the triggering day. Results: Number of oocytes correlated negatively with age in TROR and TVOR groups ( Conclusion: Transvaginal oocyte collection is the standard and easiest method for oocyte retrieval. However, for patients with an intact hymen particularly in regions with cultural and religious considerations, trans-rectal oocyte collection is also regarded as a safe and simple alternative.
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.