FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2950470522> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2950470522 endingPage "997" @default.
• W2950470522 startingPage "989" @default.
• W2950470522 abstract "Can two different methods for oocyte vitrification, one using an open tool and the other a closed tool, result in similar oocyte survival rates? The oocyte survival rate was found to be higher in the closed method. Open vitrification is performed routinely in oocyte donation cycles. Closed oocyte vitrification may result in slower cooling rates and thus it is less used, even though it has been recommended in order to avoid the risk of cross-contamination between material from different patients. This is a prospective cohort study with sibling oocytes carried out in a fertility center between July 2014 and January 2016. The study included 83 oocyte donors each providing a minimum of 12 mature oocytes (metaphase II: MII) at oocyte retrieval. Oocyte survival rate and fertilization rate, as well as reproductive outcomes (biochemical, clinical, ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates) per embryo transfer and also cumulatively between the two methods were compared by Chi2 tests. Donor oocytes were denuded and six MII oocytes from each donor were vitrified using an open method and later assigned to one recipient, while another six MII oocytes were vitrified using a closed method and assigned to a different recipient (paired analysis). ICSI was used in all cases and embryo transfer was performed on Day 2–3 in all cases. Oocyte donors were 24.8 years old on average (SD 4.7). Recipient age (average 41.2 years, SD 4.7) and BMI (mean 23.8 kg/m2, SD 4.0) were similar between recipient groups. Oocytes vitrified using the closed method had higher survival rate (94.5% versus 88.9%, P = 0.002), but lower fertilization rate (57.1% versus 69.8%, P < 0.001) compared to the open method. The number of fresh embryos transferred in the two groups was 1.8 on average (SD 0.4). Biochemical (45% closed versus 50% open), clinical (40% versus 50%) and ongoing (37.5% versus 42.5%) pregnancy rates were not different between groups (P > 0.05) and neither were live birth rates (37.5% versus 42.5%, P > 0.05). Cumulative reproductive results (obtained after the transfer of all the embryos) were also similar between groups. The participants of this study were oocyte donors, i.e. young women in good health, and care should be exerted in extending our results to other populations such as infertility patients, oncofertility patients and women freezing oocytes to delay childbearing. Our results suggest that, in spite of different survival and fertilization rates, closed and open oocyte vitrification methods should offer similar reproductive outcomes up to cumulative live birth rates. The authors report no conflict of interest. Vitrolife provided the media and the closed method tool needed for the study at no cost." @default.
• W2950470522 created "2019-06-27" @default.
• W2950470522 creator A5031368813 @default.
• W2950470522 creator A5056886910 @default.
• W2950470522 creator A5068138489 @default.
• W2950470522 creator A5073355272 @default.
• W2950470522 creator A5081373423 @default.
• W2950470522 creator A5086411589 @default.
• W2950470522 date "2019-05-22" @default.
• W2950470522 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W2950470522 title "Comparison of two different oocyte vitrification methods: a prospective, paired study on the same genetic background and stimulation protocol" @default.
• W2950470522 cites W2009057295 @default.
• W2950470522 cites W2010487857 @default.
• W2950470522 cites W2016202959 @default.
• W2950470522 cites W2025280039 @default.
• W2950470522 cites W2033558804 @default.
• W2950470522 cites W2053109187 @default.
• W2950470522 cites W2069569673 @default.
• W2950470522 cites W2072194161 @default.
• W2950470522 cites W2073017414 @default.
• W2950470522 cites W2075454935 @default.
• W2950470522 cites W2077952338 @default.
• W2950470522 cites W2120015841 @default.
• W2950470522 cites W2123486135 @default.
• W2950470522 cites W2127134302 @default.
• W2950470522 cites W2132795811 @default.
• W2950470522 cites W2141193323 @default.
• W2950470522 cites W2145780187 @default.
• W2950470522 cites W2148106614 @default.
• W2950470522 cites W2148462455 @default.
• W2950470522 cites W2151273490 @default.
• W2950470522 cites W2165852300 @default.
• W2950470522 cites W2169528843 @default.
• W2950470522 cites W2289716019 @default.
• W2950470522 cites W2319558413 @default.
• W2950470522 cites W2397541679 @default.
• W2950470522 cites W2520412230 @default.
• W2950470522 cites W2586383466 @default.
• W2950470522 cites W2745597409 @default.
• W2950470522 cites W2781539919 @default.
• W2950470522 doi "https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dez045" @default.
• W2950470522 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31116386" @default.
• W2950470522 hasPublicationYear "2019" @default.
• W2950470522 type Work @default.
• W2950470522 sameAs 2950470522 @default.
• W2950470522 citedByCount "15" @default.
• W2950470522 countsByYear W29504705222020 @default.
• W2950470522 countsByYear W29504705222021 @default.
• W2950470522 countsByYear W29504705222022 @default.
• W2950470522 countsByYear W29504705222023 @default.
• W2950470522 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2950470522 hasAuthorship W2950470522A5031368813 @default.
• W2950470522 hasAuthorship W2950470522A5056886910 @default.
• W2950470522 hasAuthorship W2950470522A5068138489 @default.
• W2950470522 hasAuthorship W2950470522A5073355272 @default.
• W2950470522 hasAuthorship W2950470522A5081373423 @default.
• W2950470522 hasAuthorship W2950470522A5086411589 @default.
• W2950470522 hasConcept C160099875 @default.
• W2950470522 hasConcept C16685009 @default.
• W2950470522 hasConcept C196843134 @default.
• W2950470522 hasConcept C2776537878 @default.
• W2950470522 hasConcept C2776690073 @default.
• W2950470522 hasConcept C2777904497 @default.
• W2950470522 hasConcept C2778022349 @default.
• W2950470522 hasConcept C2778279030 @default.
• W2950470522 hasConcept C2778459216 @default.
• W2950470522 hasConcept C2779234561 @default.
• W2950470522 hasConcept C2908647359 @default.
• W2950470522 hasConcept C29456083 @default.
• W2950470522 hasConcept C518429986 @default.
• W2950470522 hasConcept C54355233 @default.
• W2950470522 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2950470522 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2950470522 hasConcept C88972607 @default.
• W2950470522 hasConcept C99454951 @default.
• W2950470522 hasConceptScore W2950470522C160099875 @default.
• W2950470522 hasConceptScore W2950470522C16685009 @default.
• W2950470522 hasConceptScore W2950470522C196843134 @default.
• W2950470522 hasConceptScore W2950470522C2776537878 @default.
• W2950470522 hasConceptScore W2950470522C2776690073 @default.
• W2950470522 hasConceptScore W2950470522C2777904497 @default.
• W2950470522 hasConceptScore W2950470522C2778022349 @default.
• W2950470522 hasConceptScore W2950470522C2778279030 @default.
• W2950470522 hasConceptScore W2950470522C2778459216 @default.
• W2950470522 hasConceptScore W2950470522C2779234561 @default.
• W2950470522 hasConceptScore W2950470522C2908647359 @default.
• W2950470522 hasConceptScore W2950470522C29456083 @default.
• W2950470522 hasConceptScore W2950470522C518429986 @default.
• W2950470522 hasConceptScore W2950470522C54355233 @default.
• W2950470522 hasConceptScore W2950470522C71924100 @default.
• W2950470522 hasConceptScore W2950470522C86803240 @default.
• W2950470522 hasConceptScore W2950470522C88972607 @default.
• W2950470522 hasConceptScore W2950470522C99454951 @default.
• W2950470522 hasIssue "6" @default.
• W2950470522 hasLocation W29504705221 @default.
• W2950470522 hasLocation W29504705222 @default.
• W2950470522 hasOpenAccess W2950470522 @default.
• W2950470522 hasPrimaryLocation W29504705221 @default.

• next