Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 221

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The clinical significance of the retrieval of a low number of oocytes following mild ovarian stimulation for IVF: a meta-analysis

Verberg, M.F.G., Eijkemans, M.J.C., Macklon, N.S., Heijnen, E.M.E.W., Baart, E.B., Hohmann, F.P., Fauser, B.C.J.M., Broekmans, F.J.·2008·Human Reproduction Update

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Milder ovarian stimulation protocols for in vitro fertilization (IVF) are being developed to minimize adverse effects. Mild stimulation regimens result in a decreased number of oocytes at retrieval. After conventional ovarian stimulation for IVF, a low number of oocytes are believed to represent poor ovarian reserve resulting in reduced success rates. Recent studies suggest that a similar response following mild stimulation is associated with better outcomes. METHODS: This review investigates whether the retrieval of a low number of oocytes following mild ovarian stimulation is associated with impaired implantation rates. Three randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of the mild ovarian stimulation regimen (involving midfollicular phase initiation of FSH and GnRH co-treatment) for IVF with a conventional long GnRH agonist co-treatment stimulation protocol could be identified by means of a systematic literature search. RESULTS: These studies comprised a total of 592 first treatment cycles. Individual patient data analysis showed that the mild stimulation protocol results in a significant reduction of retrieved oocytes compared with conventional ovarian stimulation (median 6 versus 9, respectively, P < 0.001). Optimal embryo implantation rates were observed with 5 oocytes retrieved following mild stimulation (31%) versus 10 oocytes following conventional stimulation (29%) (P = 0.045). CONCLUSIONS: The optimal number of retrieved oocytes depends on the ovarian stimulation regimen. After mild ovarian stimulation, a modest number of oocytes is associated with optimal implantation rates and does not reflect a poor ovarian response. Therefore, the fear of reducing the number of oocytes retrieved following mild ovarian stimulation appears to be unjustified.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/humupd/dmn053

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 221

Metadata

Authors
Verberg, M. F. G., Eijkemans, M. J. C., Macklon, N. S., Heijnen, E. M. E. W., Baart, E. B., Hohmann, F. P., Fauser, B. C. J. M., & Broekmans, F. J.
Venue
Human Reproduction Update
Published
2008-10-22
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
5-12
ISSN
  • 1355-4786 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2369
OpenAlex
W2169127753
Cited by
221
References
1
FWCI
2.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The clinical significance of the retrieval of a low number of oocytes following mild ovarian stimulation for IVF: a meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/humupd/dmn053
The paper
Verberg, M. F. G., Eijkemans, M. J. C., Macklon, N. S., Heijnen, E. M. E. W., Baart, E. B., Hohmann, F. P., Fauser, B. C. J. M., & Broekmans, F. J. (2008). The clinical significance of the retrieval of a low number of oocytes following mild ovarian stimulation for IVF: a meta-analysis. Human Reproduction Update. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmn053

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.