Loading…
The use of follicle flushing during oocyte retrieval in assisted reproductive technologies: a systematic review and meta-analysis
STUDY QUESTION Does follicular flushing during assisted reproductive technologies (ART) improve the number of oocytes retrieved? SUMMARY ANSWER Follicular flushing during ART does not result in a greater number of oocytes in normal responders. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Despite limited evidence support...
Saved in:
Published in: | Human reproduction (Oxford) 2012-08, Vol.27 (8), p.2373-2379 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c450t-1bff0fd3d7dbe8172a6ee2005bd72070948cb123acaa064ea582b7b995c10e693 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c450t-1bff0fd3d7dbe8172a6ee2005bd72070948cb123acaa064ea582b7b995c10e693 |
container_end_page | 2379 |
container_issue | 8 |
container_start_page | 2373 |
container_title | Human reproduction (Oxford) |
container_volume | 27 |
creator | Levy, Gary Hill, Micah J. Ramirez, Christina I. Correa, Luiz Ryan, Mary E. DeCherney, Alan H. Levens, Eric D. Whitcomb, Brian W. |
description | STUDY QUESTION
Does follicular flushing during assisted reproductive technologies (ART) improve the number of oocytes retrieved?
SUMMARY ANSWER
Follicular flushing during ART does not result in a greater number of oocytes in normal responders.
WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY
Despite limited evidence supporting the use of follicular flushing, it continues to be a common procedure in many ART clinics. Prior studies have provided conflicting results regarding the routine use of flushing during oocyte retrieval.
STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION
Systematic review and meta-analysis of 518 patients who participated in 6 randomized trials over 20 years.
PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS
Literature searches were conducted to retrieve randomized controlled trials on follicle or ovarian flushing in ART. Databases searched included PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Database of Clinical Trials (CENTRAL). Six trials that included 518 subjects matched the inclusion criteria. Studies included were limited to trials that were published, randomized trials comparing oocyte retrieval with a single-lumen pick-up needle versus follicle flushing after direct aspiration with a multi-channel oocyte pick-up needle in ART patients.
MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE
In each of the trials, measures of the oocyte yield (oocytes retrieved divided by follicles aspirated), total oocytes retrieved, fertilization or pregnancy were not different when comparing direct aspiration with follicle flushing. Four trials reported a higher operative time with follicle flushing. Results of the meta-analysis indicated no significant differences in the oocytes retrieved [weighted mean difference: 0.07, 95% confidence interval (CI): −0.13 to 0.29] or the oocyte yield (odds ratio: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.95–1.18) between the non-flushing and flushing groups.
LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION
All trials featured an open label design and the majority of patients in this meta-analysis were normal responders. The applications of these results to poor responders, patients undergoing natural cycle ART or minimal stimulation ART should be made with caution.
WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS
Follicle flushing does not improve ART outcomes in normal-responding patients and should not be performed. This meta-analysis should solidify this recommendation as it includes the largest trial published on the subject and is consistent with a recently published Cochrane review.
STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)
This wo |
doi_str_mv | 10.1093/humrep/des174 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3398677</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><oup_id>10.1093/humrep/des174</oup_id><sourcerecordid>1027040947</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c450t-1bff0fd3d7dbe8172a6ee2005bd72070948cb123acaa064ea582b7b995c10e693</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkb2P1DAQxS0E4paDkha5QaIJZzuJnVAgoRNf0kk0R21N7MnGyIkX29nTlvzneLXLHVRUM5r56b0nPUJecvaWs76-mtY54u7KYuKqeUQ2vJGsEnXLHpMNE7KrOJf8gjxL6QdjZe3kU3IhhGxU07IN-XU7IV0T0jDSMXjvjEc6-jVNbtlSu8bjCMEcMtKIOTrcg6duoZCSSxltue5isKvJbo80o5mW4MPWYXpHgaZDYWbIzhRu7_COwmLpjBkqWMAfisZz8mQEn_DFeV6S758-3l5_qW6-ff56_eGmMiVorvgwjmy0tVV2wI4rARJRMNYOVgmmWN90ZuCiBgPAZIPQdmJQQ9-3hjOUfX1J3p90d-swozW45Ahe76KbIR50AKf__Sxu0tuw13Xdd1KpIvDmLBDDzxVT1rNLBr2HBcOaNGdCsaYEOaLVCTUxpBRxvLfhTB9r06fa9Km2wr_6O9s9_aenArw-A5AM-DHCYlx64CRvasn7h4xh3f3H8zcMqLUZ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1027040947</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The use of follicle flushing during oocyte retrieval in assisted reproductive technologies: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><source>Oxford Journals Online</source><creator>Levy, Gary ; Hill, Micah J. ; Ramirez, Christina I. ; Correa, Luiz ; Ryan, Mary E. ; DeCherney, Alan H. ; Levens, Eric D. ; Whitcomb, Brian W.</creator><creatorcontrib>Levy, Gary ; Hill, Micah J. ; Ramirez, Christina I. ; Correa, Luiz ; Ryan, Mary E. ; DeCherney, Alan H. ; Levens, Eric D. ; Whitcomb, Brian W.</creatorcontrib><description>STUDY QUESTION
Does follicular flushing during assisted reproductive technologies (ART) improve the number of oocytes retrieved?
SUMMARY ANSWER
Follicular flushing during ART does not result in a greater number of oocytes in normal responders.
WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY
Despite limited evidence supporting the use of follicular flushing, it continues to be a common procedure in many ART clinics. Prior studies have provided conflicting results regarding the routine use of flushing during oocyte retrieval.
STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION
Systematic review and meta-analysis of 518 patients who participated in 6 randomized trials over 20 years.
PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS
Literature searches were conducted to retrieve randomized controlled trials on follicle or ovarian flushing in ART. Databases searched included PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Database of Clinical Trials (CENTRAL). Six trials that included 518 subjects matched the inclusion criteria. Studies included were limited to trials that were published, randomized trials comparing oocyte retrieval with a single-lumen pick-up needle versus follicle flushing after direct aspiration with a multi-channel oocyte pick-up needle in ART patients.
MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE
In each of the trials, measures of the oocyte yield (oocytes retrieved divided by follicles aspirated), total oocytes retrieved, fertilization or pregnancy were not different when comparing direct aspiration with follicle flushing. Four trials reported a higher operative time with follicle flushing. Results of the meta-analysis indicated no significant differences in the oocytes retrieved [weighted mean difference: 0.07, 95% confidence interval (CI): −0.13 to 0.29] or the oocyte yield (odds ratio: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.95–1.18) between the non-flushing and flushing groups.
LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION
All trials featured an open label design and the majority of patients in this meta-analysis were normal responders. The applications of these results to poor responders, patients undergoing natural cycle ART or minimal stimulation ART should be made with caution.
WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS
Follicle flushing does not improve ART outcomes in normal-responding patients and should not be performed. This meta-analysis should solidify this recommendation as it includes the largest trial published on the subject and is consistent with a recently published Cochrane review.
STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)
This work was supported, in part, by the Program in Reproductive and Adult Endocrinology, NICHD, NIH, Bethesda, MD. The authors have no competing interests to declare.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
N/A.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0268-1161</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1460-2350</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/humrep/des174</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22647450</identifier><identifier>CODEN: HUREEE</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Adult ; Biological and medical sciences ; Databases, Factual ; Female ; Fertilization ; Fertilization in Vitro - methods ; Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics ; Humans ; Medical sciences ; Oocyte Retrieval - methods ; Oocytes - cytology ; Oocytes - metabolism ; Original ; Ovarian Follicle - pathology ; Pregnancy ; Pregnancy Rate ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ; Reproductive Techniques, Assisted ; Risk</subject><ispartof>Human reproduction (Oxford), 2012-08, Vol.27 (8), p.2373-2379</ispartof><rights>The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com 2012</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c450t-1bff0fd3d7dbe8172a6ee2005bd72070948cb123acaa064ea582b7b995c10e693</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c450t-1bff0fd3d7dbe8172a6ee2005bd72070948cb123acaa064ea582b7b995c10e693</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=26143619$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22647450$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Levy, Gary</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hill, Micah J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ramirez, Christina I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Correa, Luiz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ryan, Mary E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DeCherney, Alan H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Levens, Eric D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Whitcomb, Brian W.</creatorcontrib><title>The use of follicle flushing during oocyte retrieval in assisted reproductive technologies: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><title>Human reproduction (Oxford)</title><addtitle>Hum Reprod</addtitle><description>STUDY QUESTION
Does follicular flushing during assisted reproductive technologies (ART) improve the number of oocytes retrieved?
SUMMARY ANSWER
Follicular flushing during ART does not result in a greater number of oocytes in normal responders.
WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY
Despite limited evidence supporting the use of follicular flushing, it continues to be a common procedure in many ART clinics. Prior studies have provided conflicting results regarding the routine use of flushing during oocyte retrieval.
STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION
Systematic review and meta-analysis of 518 patients who participated in 6 randomized trials over 20 years.
PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS
Literature searches were conducted to retrieve randomized controlled trials on follicle or ovarian flushing in ART. Databases searched included PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Database of Clinical Trials (CENTRAL). Six trials that included 518 subjects matched the inclusion criteria. Studies included were limited to trials that were published, randomized trials comparing oocyte retrieval with a single-lumen pick-up needle versus follicle flushing after direct aspiration with a multi-channel oocyte pick-up needle in ART patients.
MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE
In each of the trials, measures of the oocyte yield (oocytes retrieved divided by follicles aspirated), total oocytes retrieved, fertilization or pregnancy were not different when comparing direct aspiration with follicle flushing. Four trials reported a higher operative time with follicle flushing. Results of the meta-analysis indicated no significant differences in the oocytes retrieved [weighted mean difference: 0.07, 95% confidence interval (CI): −0.13 to 0.29] or the oocyte yield (odds ratio: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.95–1.18) between the non-flushing and flushing groups.
LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION
All trials featured an open label design and the majority of patients in this meta-analysis were normal responders. The applications of these results to poor responders, patients undergoing natural cycle ART or minimal stimulation ART should be made with caution.
WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS
Follicle flushing does not improve ART outcomes in normal-responding patients and should not be performed. This meta-analysis should solidify this recommendation as it includes the largest trial published on the subject and is consistent with a recently published Cochrane review.
STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)
This work was supported, in part, by the Program in Reproductive and Adult Endocrinology, NICHD, NIH, Bethesda, MD. The authors have no competing interests to declare.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
N/A.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Databases, Factual</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fertilization</subject><subject>Fertilization in Vitro - methods</subject><subject>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Oocyte Retrieval - methods</subject><subject>Oocytes - cytology</subject><subject>Oocytes - metabolism</subject><subject>Original</subject><subject>Ovarian Follicle - pathology</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Pregnancy Rate</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</subject><subject>Reproductive Techniques, Assisted</subject><subject>Risk</subject><issn>0268-1161</issn><issn>1460-2350</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkb2P1DAQxS0E4paDkha5QaIJZzuJnVAgoRNf0kk0R21N7MnGyIkX29nTlvzneLXLHVRUM5r56b0nPUJecvaWs76-mtY54u7KYuKqeUQ2vJGsEnXLHpMNE7KrOJf8gjxL6QdjZe3kU3IhhGxU07IN-XU7IV0T0jDSMXjvjEc6-jVNbtlSu8bjCMEcMtKIOTrcg6duoZCSSxltue5isKvJbo80o5mW4MPWYXpHgaZDYWbIzhRu7_COwmLpjBkqWMAfisZz8mQEn_DFeV6S758-3l5_qW6-ff56_eGmMiVorvgwjmy0tVV2wI4rARJRMNYOVgmmWN90ZuCiBgPAZIPQdmJQQ9-3hjOUfX1J3p90d-swozW45Ahe76KbIR50AKf__Sxu0tuw13Xdd1KpIvDmLBDDzxVT1rNLBr2HBcOaNGdCsaYEOaLVCTUxpBRxvLfhTB9r06fa9Km2wr_6O9s9_aenArw-A5AM-DHCYlx64CRvasn7h4xh3f3H8zcMqLUZ</recordid><startdate>20120801</startdate><enddate>20120801</enddate><creator>Levy, Gary</creator><creator>Hill, Micah J.</creator><creator>Ramirez, Christina I.</creator><creator>Correa, Luiz</creator><creator>Ryan, Mary E.</creator><creator>DeCherney, Alan H.</creator><creator>Levens, Eric D.</creator><creator>Whitcomb, Brian W.</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120801</creationdate><title>The use of follicle flushing during oocyte retrieval in assisted reproductive technologies: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><author>Levy, Gary ; Hill, Micah J. ; Ramirez, Christina I. ; Correa, Luiz ; Ryan, Mary E. ; DeCherney, Alan H. ; Levens, Eric D. ; Whitcomb, Brian W.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c450t-1bff0fd3d7dbe8172a6ee2005bd72070948cb123acaa064ea582b7b995c10e693</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Databases, Factual</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fertilization</topic><topic>Fertilization in Vitro - methods</topic><topic>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Oocyte Retrieval - methods</topic><topic>Oocytes - cytology</topic><topic>Oocytes - metabolism</topic><topic>Original</topic><topic>Ovarian Follicle - pathology</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Pregnancy Rate</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</topic><topic>Reproductive Techniques, Assisted</topic><topic>Risk</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Levy, Gary</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hill, Micah J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ramirez, Christina I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Correa, Luiz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ryan, Mary E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DeCherney, Alan H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Levens, Eric D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Whitcomb, Brian W.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Human reproduction (Oxford)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Levy, Gary</au><au>Hill, Micah J.</au><au>Ramirez, Christina I.</au><au>Correa, Luiz</au><au>Ryan, Mary E.</au><au>DeCherney, Alan H.</au><au>Levens, Eric D.</au><au>Whitcomb, Brian W.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The use of follicle flushing during oocyte retrieval in assisted reproductive technologies: a systematic review and meta-analysis</atitle><jtitle>Human reproduction (Oxford)</jtitle><addtitle>Hum Reprod</addtitle><date>2012-08-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>27</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>2373</spage><epage>2379</epage><pages>2373-2379</pages><issn>0268-1161</issn><eissn>1460-2350</eissn><coden>HUREEE</coden><abstract>STUDY QUESTION
Does follicular flushing during assisted reproductive technologies (ART) improve the number of oocytes retrieved?
SUMMARY ANSWER
Follicular flushing during ART does not result in a greater number of oocytes in normal responders.
WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY
Despite limited evidence supporting the use of follicular flushing, it continues to be a common procedure in many ART clinics. Prior studies have provided conflicting results regarding the routine use of flushing during oocyte retrieval.
STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION
Systematic review and meta-analysis of 518 patients who participated in 6 randomized trials over 20 years.
PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS
Literature searches were conducted to retrieve randomized controlled trials on follicle or ovarian flushing in ART. Databases searched included PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Database of Clinical Trials (CENTRAL). Six trials that included 518 subjects matched the inclusion criteria. Studies included were limited to trials that were published, randomized trials comparing oocyte retrieval with a single-lumen pick-up needle versus follicle flushing after direct aspiration with a multi-channel oocyte pick-up needle in ART patients.
MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE
In each of the trials, measures of the oocyte yield (oocytes retrieved divided by follicles aspirated), total oocytes retrieved, fertilization or pregnancy were not different when comparing direct aspiration with follicle flushing. Four trials reported a higher operative time with follicle flushing. Results of the meta-analysis indicated no significant differences in the oocytes retrieved [weighted mean difference: 0.07, 95% confidence interval (CI): −0.13 to 0.29] or the oocyte yield (odds ratio: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.95–1.18) between the non-flushing and flushing groups.
LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION
All trials featured an open label design and the majority of patients in this meta-analysis were normal responders. The applications of these results to poor responders, patients undergoing natural cycle ART or minimal stimulation ART should be made with caution.
WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS
Follicle flushing does not improve ART outcomes in normal-responding patients and should not be performed. This meta-analysis should solidify this recommendation as it includes the largest trial published on the subject and is consistent with a recently published Cochrane review.
STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)
This work was supported, in part, by the Program in Reproductive and Adult Endocrinology, NICHD, NIH, Bethesda, MD. The authors have no competing interests to declare.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
N/A.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><pmid>22647450</pmid><doi>10.1093/humrep/des174</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0268-1161 |
ispartof | Human reproduction (Oxford), 2012-08, Vol.27 (8), p.2373-2379 |
issn | 0268-1161 1460-2350 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3398677 |
source | Oxford Journals Online |
subjects | Adult Biological and medical sciences Databases, Factual Female Fertilization Fertilization in Vitro - methods Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics Humans Medical sciences Oocyte Retrieval - methods Oocytes - cytology Oocytes - metabolism Original Ovarian Follicle - pathology Pregnancy Pregnancy Rate Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic Reproductive Techniques, Assisted Risk |
title | The use of follicle flushing during oocyte retrieval in assisted reproductive technologies: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T05%3A31%3A36IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20use%20of%20follicle%20flushing%20during%20oocyte%20retrieval%20in%20assisted%20reproductive%20technologies:%20a%20systematic%20review%20and%20meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=Human%20reproduction%20(Oxford)&rft.au=Levy,%20Gary&rft.date=2012-08-01&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=2373&rft.epage=2379&rft.pages=2373-2379&rft.issn=0268-1161&rft.eissn=1460-2350&rft.coden=HUREEE&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/humrep/des174&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1027040947%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c450t-1bff0fd3d7dbe8172a6ee2005bd72070948cb123acaa064ea582b7b995c10e693%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1027040947&rft_id=info:pmid/22647450&rft_oup_id=10.1093/humrep/des174&rfr_iscdi=true |