ReviewCureus2026
Microplastics in Human Ovarian Follicular Fluid and Female Fertility.
Review in Cureus, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Microplastics and nanoplastics are increasingly reported in human biological matrices, raising concern about the exposure of the ovarian follicle during oocyte maturation. This narrative review evaluated evidence on plastic particles or polymer mass in human ovarian follicular fluid and their potential relevance to female fertility and assisted reproductive technology (ART). PubMed, including the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE); publisher records; reference lists; and citing articles were searched through July 28, 2026. Six full human observational studies and three preliminary reports were identified, demonstrating the limited size of the current evidence base. The full studies detected plastic-derived particles or polymer mass in human follicular fluid, although reported concentrations and polymer profiles differed substantially across analytical platforms. Several small studies associated higher polyethylene (PE) or polyvinyl chloride (PVC) burdens with lower fertilization rates, higher follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) levels, or diminished ovarian reserve (DOR), while the largest case-control study reported the strongest association for polyamide 66 (PA66). These findings have not been independently replicated and remain observational. Cross-sectional designs, small and selected infertility-clinic populations, residual confounding, possible procedural contamination, nonequivalent measurement units, and the absence of standardized analytical methods preclude causal interpretation and quantitative comparison across studies. Animal and cell studies provide mechanistic plausibility but frequently use exposure conditions that may not represent human follicular exposure. Current evidence therefore supports the presence of plastic-derived material in the human follicular microenvironment but does not establish that microplastics cause infertility or that follicular-fluid testing has clinical utility. Prospective multicenter studies using standardized contamination controls, harmonized exposure measurements, and preregistered reproductive outcomes are required.
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.