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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Initial and cyclic recruitment of ovarian follicles
McGee, E. A., & Hsueh, A. J. W. (2000) · Endocrine Reviews · doi:10.1210/edrv.21.2.0394 · Cited by 1,771
Cited by
Sub-optimal responders following controlled ovarian stimulation: an overlooked group?
Polyzos, N. P., & Sunkara, S. K. (2015) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/humrep/dev149 · Cited by 106
Proteomic analysis of the microenvironment of developing oocytes
Twigt, J., Steegers‐Theunissen, R. P., Bezstarosti, K., & Demmers, J. A. A. (2012) · PROTEOMICS · doi:10.1002/pmic.201100240 · Cited by 58
Wiegel, R. E., Danser, A. H. J., van Duijn, L., Willemsen, S. P., Laven, J. S. E., Steegers, E. A. P., Baart, E. B., & Steegers-Theunissen, R. P. M. (2023) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/humrep/dead030 · Cited by 8
Self-citation
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
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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.