-
Heliyon May 2024Alternatives to allogeneic blood transfusions are sought for resource management reasons and it is necessary to investigate the efficiency and efficacy on Cell Salvage...
BACKGROUND
Alternatives to allogeneic blood transfusions are sought for resource management reasons and it is necessary to investigate the efficiency and efficacy on Cell Salvage use. The objective of this study is to analyze the effectiveness of the Cell Salvage system in addressing factors related to healthcare service utilization that may lead to increased healthcare expenditure.
METHODS
A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted through literature search in Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Inclusion criteria were studies in English/Spanish, without year restriction and Randomized Controlled Trials design, conducted in adults.
RESULTS
Twenty-six studies were included in the systematic review, involving a total of 4781 patients (n = 2365; n = 2416). Significant differences favored the Cell Salvage system in units of transfused Red Blood Cells, in terms of units (p = 0.04; SMD = -0.42 95 % CI = -0.83 to -0.02) and individuals (p = 0.001; RR = 0.71, 95 % CI = 0.60 to 0.84) transfused. No significant differences were found in ICU (p = 0.93) and hospital stay duration (p = 0.21), number of reoperations (p = 0.68), and number of units and individuals transfused in terms of platelets (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
Cell Salvage use holds high potential for reducing healthcare costs and indirectly contributing to improving blood and blood product reserves within blood banks. Results obtained thus far do not provide definitive evidence regarding the duration of hospital stay, ICU stay, need for reoperation, or the quantity of transfused platelets. Therefore, it is recommended to increase the number of studies to assess the impact on the economic models of the Cell Salvage system.
PubMed: 38720744
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e30459 -
Transfusion Jun 2024
PubMed: 38708709
DOI: 10.1111/trf.17816 -
JSES International May 2024Prior research has demonstrated that platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has shown promising results in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis, lateral epicondylitis, and rotator... (Review)
Review
A systematic review of randomized control trials looking at functional improvement of rotator cuff partial thickness tears following platelet-rich-plasma injection: a comparison of glenohumeral joint vs. subacromial bursa vs. intratendinous injection locations.
BACKGROUND
Prior research has demonstrated that platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has shown promising results in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis, lateral epicondylitis, and rotator cuff disease. However, there is a lack of standardization with PRP regarding its use for partial thickness rotator cuff tears (PTRCTs). The primary objective of this review is to assess the location of PRP injections in the shoulder, and how it corresponds to shoulder functional outcomes in PTRCTs.
METHODS
Data sources included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted between January 2010 and September 2021 with the terms PRP, partial thickness rotator cuff tears, intra-articular injections, subacromial injections, and intratendinous injections. Major inclusion criteria: partial thickness rotator cuff tears only, functional outcome scores pre-injection and post-injection, minimum 2-month follow-up time, and nonsurgical PRP injections only. Major exclusion criteria: PRP used as an adjunct therapy, full-thickness rotator cuff tears, and surgical intervention before treatment.
RESULTS
A total of 8 RCTs were included which utilized PRP injected into the shoulder for PTRCTs. Studies were grouped by the location of the injection with the following breakdown: 1 glenohumeral joint, 4 subacromial bursa, and 3 intratendinous as the site of injection of PRP. Intra-articular PRP showed a 46.2% improvement ( < .05) in the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score at 12-month follow-up, however PRP compared to physical therapy had no statistical difference. For subacromial injections, one study showed no statistical difference between hyaluronic acid and PRP vs PRP, but both groups showed improvement compared to normal saline at 3, 6, and 12 months ( < .05). For intratendinous injections, PRP was found to be superior in the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index scores at 66.1% improvement ( < .05) at 3 months and 71.6% at 6 months ( < .05) after two PRP injections when compared to dry needling. Another study showed a statistically significant difference in ASES score when combining LP-PRP injection intratendinous and subacromial bursa when compared to corticosteroid at 3 months. Furthermore, at 6-month follow-up, the PRP group showed significant improvement in the Oxford Shoulder Score compared to a subacromial bursa corticosteroid group 53.8% vs 31.7% ( < .01).
CONCLUSION
Based on our review of current literature, there is inconclusive evidence of the ideal location to inject PRP when partial rotator cuff tear is present. Despite PRP showing improved functional outcomes in patients diagnosed with PTRCT regardless of the injection site, more research is needed to figure out the optimal concentration of PRP, frequency of injection, and who are ideal candidates when utilizing PRP for PTRCTs.
PubMed: 38707549
DOI: 10.1016/j.jseint.2024.01.003 -
Family Practice May 2024In primary care, health professionals use blood tests to investigate nonspecific presentations to inform referral decisions. Reference ranges for the commonly used blood...
BACKGROUND
In primary care, health professionals use blood tests to investigate nonspecific presentations to inform referral decisions. Reference ranges for the commonly used blood tests in western countries were developed in predominately White populations, and so may perform differently when applied to non-White populations. Knowledge of ethnic variation in blood test results in healthy/general populations could help address ethnic inequalities in cancer referral for diagnosis and outcomes.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review explored evidence of ethnic differences in the distribution of selected blood test results among healthy/general populations to inform future research aimed at addressing inequalities in cancer diagnosis.
METHODS
We searched PubMed and EMBASE to identify studies reporting measures of haemoglobin, MCV, calcium, albumin, platelet count, and CRP in nondiseased adults from at least 2 different ethnic groups. Two reviewers independently screened studies, completed data extraction and quality assessment using an adapted Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Participants were stratified into White, Black, Asian, Mixed, and Other groups. Data were synthesised narratively and meta-analyses were conducted where possible.
RESULTS
A total of 47 papers were included. Black men and women have lower average values of haemoglobin, MCV, and albumin, and higher average values of CRP relative to their White counterparts. Additionally, Black men have lower average haemoglobin than Asian men, whereas Asian women have lower average CRP values when compared with White women.
CONCLUSIONS
There is evidence of ethnic differences in average values of haemoglobin, MCV, CRP, and albumin in healthy/general populations. Further research is needed to explore the reasons for these differences. Systematic review registration: CRD42021274580.
PubMed: 38706165
DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmae021 -
Medicine May 2024Although several studies on the potential benefits of protein-rich plasma (PRP) therapy for rotator cuff injuries have been published, the results have been conflicting.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair combined with platelet-rich plasma products can reduce the rate of retearing and improve clinical outcomes: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Although several studies on the potential benefits of protein-rich plasma (PRP) therapy for rotator cuff injuries have been published, the results have been conflicting. Therefore, this study aimed to determine whether PRP is beneficial for the prevention of retears after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR).
METHODS
Two reviewers conducted independent literature searches based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a PRP treatment group with a control group were included. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. Clinical outcomes were compared using the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous variables and weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous variables. Statistical significance was set at P < .05.
RESULTS
This review included 21 RCTs (1359 patients). Significant results were noted in favor of PRP treatment compared with controls based on retearing rates (16.5% vs 23.6%, respectively; P = .002) and the Constant score in the short term (WMD: 1.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27-3.70; I2 = 0%; P = .02), medium term and long term (WMD: 2.56 [95% CI: 1.57-3.55]; I2 = 2%; P < .001); the University of California, Los Angeles score in the short term (WMD: 1.14 [95% CI: 0.43-1.85]; I2 = 25%; P = .002) but not in the medium and long term (WMD: 0.66 [95% CI: -0.16 to 1.48]; I2 = 57%; P = .11); and the visual analog scale score in the short term (WMD: -0.63 [95% CI: -0.83 to-0.43]; I2 = 41%; P < .001), medium and long term (WMD: -0.12 [95% CI: -0.19 to-0.05]; I2 = 0%; P = .008). There was no significant difference in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores between the treatment and control groups in the short term (WMD: -0.48 [95% CI: -2.80 to 1.85]; I2 = 22%; P = .69) or medium and long term (WMD: 0.92 [95% CI: -1.56 to 3.39]; I2 = 40%; P = .47).
CONCLUSION
Intraoperative use of PRP reduces the risk of rotator cuff repair failure, improves clinical outcomes, and reduces recurrence rates.
Topics: Humans; Platelet-Rich Plasma; Rotator Cuff Injuries; Arthroscopy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38701265
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000038069 -
Cerebrovascular Diseases Extra 2024Moyamoya disease (MMD) is an uncommon cause of stroke. Antiplatelet treatment is commonly prescribed for patients with MMD despite the lack of strong evidence supporting...
INTRODUCTION
Moyamoya disease (MMD) is an uncommon cause of stroke. Antiplatelet treatment is commonly prescribed for patients with MMD despite the lack of strong evidence supporting its efficacy. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate evidence of antiplatelet treatment and clinical outcomes among patients with MMD.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed to identify studies that evaluated the association between antiplatelet treatment and clinical outcomes, including ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, functional outcome, survival, and bypass patency, in patients with MMD. The following databases were searched: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library, from the inception date to February 2022.
RESULTS
Eight studies were included in this systematic review. Six studies evaluated antiplatelet treatment and ischemic stroke. Most studies did not demonstrate a protective effect of antiplatelet treatment against ischemic stroke. Five studies evaluated antiplatelet treatment and hemorrhagic stroke. All of them did not demonstrate an increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke. One study found the benefit of antiplatelet treatment in terms of survival. Regarding the effect of antiplatelet treatment on functional outcome and patency of surgical bypass, the results were inconclusive.
CONCLUSION
Current evidence suggests that antiplatelet treatment in patients with MMD did not demonstrate a protective effect against ischemic stroke. However, antiplatelet treatment did not increase the risk of hemorrhagic stroke in patients with MMD. The well-designed randomized controlled trial should be highlighted.
Topics: Humans; Moyamoya Disease; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Treatment Outcome; Risk Factors; Hemorrhagic Stroke; Ischemic Stroke; Female; Risk Assessment; Male; Middle Aged; Adult; Young Adult; Adolescent; Aged; Child; Child, Preschool
PubMed: 38697036
DOI: 10.1159/000539025 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2024Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which appeared in 2019, has been classified as critical and non-critical according to clinical signs and symptoms.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study
INTRODUCTION
Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which appeared in 2019, has been classified as critical and non-critical according to clinical signs and symptoms. Critical patients require mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit (ICU) admission, whereas non-critical patients require neither mechanical ventilation nor ICU admission. Several factors have been recently identified as effective factors, including blood cell count, enzymes, blood markers, and underlying diseases. By comparing blood markers, comorbidities, co-infections, and their relationship with mortality, we sought to determine differences between critical and non-critical groups.
METHOD
We used Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science databases for our systematic search. Inclusion criteria include any report describing the clinical course of COVID-19 patients and showing the association of the COVID-19 clinical courses with blood cells, blood markers, and bacterial co-infection changes. Twenty-one publications were eligible for full-text examination between 2019 to 2021.
RESULT
The standard difference in WBC, lymphocyte, and platelet between the two clinical groups was 0.538, -0.670, and -0.421, respectively. Also, the standard difference between the two clinical groups of CRP, ALT, and AST was 0.482, 0.402, and 0.463, respectively. The odds ratios for hypertension and diabetes were significantly different between the two groups. The prevalence of co-infection also in the critical group is higher.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, our data suggest that critical patients suffer from a suppressed immune system, and the inflammation level, the risk of organ damage, and co-infections are significantly high in the critical group and suggests the use of bacteriostatic instead of bactericides to treat co-infections.
Topics: COVID-19; Humans; SARS-CoV-2; Critical Illness; Biomarkers; Comorbidity; Coinfection; Intensive Care Units; Respiration, Artificial
PubMed: 38690274
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1341168 -
BMC Emergency Medicine Apr 2024The inflammatory response to burn injuries can lead to organ dysfunction that ultimately results in increased mortality and morbidity. This meta-analysis was conducted... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
The inflammatory response to burn injuries can lead to organ dysfunction that ultimately results in increased mortality and morbidity. This meta-analysis was conducted to determine the efficacy of inflammatory biomarkers, including the neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR), procalcitonin (PCT), and C-reactive protein (CRP) as predictive tools of mortality among burn patients.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The biomarker levels of survivors and non-survivors were consolidated according to guidelines for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Three main databases were searched electronically: PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus, on December 8, 2022. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate and score the methodological quality of the included studies. The standard mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was utilized.
RESULTS
Twenty-four studies were included in our systematic review and meta-analysis, (3636 total burn patients), of whom 2878 survived. We found that deceased burn patients had elevated levels of NLR (SMD = 0.60, 95% CI; 0.19-1.00, P < 0.001), CRP (SMD = 0.80, 95% CI; 0.02-1.58, P = 0.04), and PCT (SMD = 0.85, 95% CI; 0.45-1.24, P < 0.001), compared to survivors. However, we found no association between PLR and mortality among burn patients (SMD = 0.00, 95% CI; -0.14-0.15, P < 0.001). In addition, CRP was significantly higher in non-survivors (SMD = 0.80, 95% CI; 0.02-1.58, P =0.04). Similar results were also found about PCT (SMD = 0.85, 95% CI; 0.45-1.24, P < 0.001). When we analyzed the PCT data, collected in the first 24-48 hours, we found similar results; the PCT level was significantly higher in non-survivors in the immediate postinjury-period (SMD = 0.67, 95% CI; 0.31-1.02, P < 0.001). There was no publication bias among studies on the role of NLR in burn (Egger's test P = 0.91). The based cut-off values for NLR (13), CRP (71), and PCT (1.77) yielded sensitivities of 69.2%, 100%, and 93.33%, and specificities of 76%, 72.22%, and 72.22% respectively.
DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS
PCT is a marker of sepsis, therefore its elevated level is presumably associated with a higher incidence and severity of sepsis among non-survivors. In addition, NLR and CRP are promising biomarkers for predicting and guiding prevention against burn deaths in clinical settings.
Topics: Humans; Burns; Biomarkers; C-Reactive Protein; Procalcitonin; Inflammation; Neutrophils
PubMed: 38684973
DOI: 10.1186/s12873-024-00988-x -
American Journal of Cardiovascular... May 2024The efficacy and safety of bivalirudin when used concurrently with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) is uncertain. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
The efficacy and safety of bivalirudin when used concurrently with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) is uncertain. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin versus heparin in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and to explore the impact of differential use (greater and balanced) of GPI.
METHODS
Online databases were queried from inception to March 2023 to identify eight randomized controlled trials (n = 22,483) for inclusion. The primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, major bleeding, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and net adverse clinical events (NACE). Secondary efficacy endpoints included cardiac death, reinfarction, stent thrombosis (ST), and stroke. Data were pooled using a random-effects model to derive risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
When compared to heparin, bivalirudin was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.72-0.97; P = 0.02), major bleeding (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.57-0.93; P = 0.01), cardiac death (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.66-0.94; P = 0.01), and NACE (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.72-0.89; P < 0.0001). However, while the bivalirudin arm showed an increased likelihood of ST in the greater GPI subgroup (RR 1.70; 95% CI 1.13-2.56; P = 0.01), it was associated with a decreased likelihood of ST in the balanced GPI subgroup (RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.24-0.65; P = 0.0003).
CONCLUSION
Overall, our findings suggest that bivalirudin may be a more efficacious intervention than heparin for reducing certain adverse events in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI.
Topics: Humans; Hirudins; ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction; Peptide Fragments; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; Recombinant Proteins; Platelet Glycoprotein GPIIb-IIIa Complex; Heparin; Antithrombins; Hemorrhage; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38683263
DOI: 10.1007/s40256-024-00636-6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2024Autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) consists of plasma and a concentrate of platelets extracted from fresh whole blood of the person being treated. Research has... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) consists of plasma and a concentrate of platelets extracted from fresh whole blood of the person being treated. Research has suggested that intrauterine or intraovarian infusion/injection of PRP before embryo transfer may improve endometrial receptivity and response to ovarian stimulation in women undergoing assisted reproduction. We compared these interventions to standard treatment, placebo, or other interventions (mechanical or pharmacological).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of intrauterine and intraovarian infusion/injection of platelet-rich plasma in infertile women undergoing assisted reproductive technology cycles.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Epistemonikos database in January 2023. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted the trial authors and experts in the field for any additional trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the application of PRP in the uterine cavity, ovaries, or both versus no intervention, placebo, or any other intervention (either mechanical or pharmacological) in women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane, including use of the updated risk of bias tool (RoB 2). The primary outcomes were live birth (or ongoing pregnancy) and miscarriage. The secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, complications of the procedure, multiple pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, fetal growth restriction, preterm delivery, and fetal abnormality. We estimated the average effect of the interventions by fitting a Der Simonian-Laird's random-effects meta-analysis model. We reported pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We restricted the primary analyses to trials at low risk of bias for the outcomes and performed sensitivity analyses that included all studies.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 12 parallel-group RCTs that recruited a total of 1069 women. We identified three different comparison groups. Using GRADE, we assessed the certainty of evidence as very low for almost all outcomes. Intrauterine injection/infusion of platelet-rich plasma versus no intervention or placebo Nine studies evaluated intrauterine PRP versus no intervention or placebo. Eight included women with at least two or three previous implantation failures. Only one was assessed at low risk of bias for each outcome. This study provided very low-certainty evidence about the effect of intrauterine PRP injection versus no intervention on live birth (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.14; 94 women) and miscarriage (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.13 to 7.09; 94 women). If the likelihood of live birth following no intervention is assumed to be 17%, then the likelihood following intrauterine PRP would be 7% to 40%; and if the risk of miscarriage following no intervention is 4%, then the risk following intrauterine PRP would be 1% to 24%. When we analyzed all studies (regardless of risk of bias), we found very low-certainty evidence about the effect of intrauterine PRP compared with placebo or no intervention on live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.16 to 4.86; I² = 54%; 6 studies, 564 women) and miscarriage (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.59 to 4.01; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 504 women). The study at low risk of bias provided very low-certainty evidence about the effect of intrauterine PRP compared with no intervention on clinical pregnancy (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.76; 94 women) and ectopic pregnancy (OR 2.94, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.95; 94 women). The synthesis of all studies provided very low-certainty evidence about the effect of intrauterine PRP compared with placebo or no intervention on clinical pregnancy (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.50 to 3.27; I² = 24%; 9 studies, 824 women), multiple pregnancy (OR 2.68, 95% CI 0.81 to 8.88; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 240 women), and ectopic pregnancy (OR 2.94, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.95; 1 study, 94 women; very low-certainty evidence). Intrauterine infusion of PRP may increase the risk of preterm delivery compared with no intervention (OR 8.02, 95% CI 1.72 to 37.33; 1 study, 120 women; low-certainty evidence). No studies reported pain, infection, allergic reaction, fetal growth restriction, or fetal abnormality. Intrauterine infusion of platelet-rich plasma versus intrauterine infusion of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor Two RCTs evaluated intrauterine PRP versus intrauterine granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF); both included women with thin endometrium, and neither was judged at low risk of bias for any outcome. We are uncertain about the effect of intrauterine PRP compared with intrauterine G-CSF on live birth (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.81; 1 study, 132 women; very low-certainty evidence), miscarriage (OR 1.94, 95% CI 0.63 to 5.96; 1 study, 132 women; very low-certainty evidence), and clinical pregnancy (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.35; 2 studies, 172 women; very low-certainty evidence). Neither study reported adverse outcomes other than miscarriage. Intraovarian injection of platelet-rich plasma versus no intervention One RCT evaluated PRP injection into both ovaries versus no intervention; it was judged at high risk of bias for the two outcomes it reported. We are uncertain about the effect of intraovarian PRP injection compared with no intervention on ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.33 to 3.63; 73 women; very low-certainty evidence) and clinical pregnancy (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.60; 73 women; very low-certainty evidence). The study examined no safety outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are uncertain about the effect of intrauterine or intraovarian administration of PRP on outcomes of assisted reproduction technology in infertile women. The pooled results should be interpreted with caution. Only one of the 12 included studies was judged at low risk of bias. Other limitations of the included trials were failure to report live birth, poor reporting of methods, lack of prospective protocol registration, low precision due to the small number of enrolled participants, indirectness due to the specific subpopulations and settings studied, and insufficient or absent safety data.
Topics: Humans; Platelet-Rich Plasma; Female; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Pregnancy; Live Birth; Pregnancy Rate; Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic; Reproductive Techniques, Assisted; Abortion, Spontaneous; Infertility, Female; Bias; Fertilization in Vitro; Uterus; Embryo Transfer; Ovulation Induction; Embryo Implantation; Ovary; Pregnancy, Multiple
PubMed: 38682756
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013875.pub2