ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2013
Mild ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: one perspective from the USA.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Results of a pilot study in the U.S. and Vietnam to assess the utility and acceptability of a multi-level pregnancy test (MLPT) for home monitoring of hCG trends after assisted reproduction.BMC women's health · 2017Article
- Gonadotropin dose is negatively correlated with live birth rate: analysis of more than 650,000 assisted reproductive technology cycles.Fertility and sterility · 2015Article
- Association of number of retrieved oocytes with live birth rate and birth weight: an analysis of 231,815 cycles of in vitro fertilization.Fertility and sterility · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo provide a perspective regarding mild ovarian stimulation, taking into account particular issues relevant in the United States
methodsLiterature review and editorial commentary
resultsMild ovarian stimulation for IVF has some proven and some theoretical advantages over conventional stimulation, such as lower risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and lower cost per fresh IVF cycle. However, cumulative live birth rate, including transfers from fresh and frozen embryos, is likely to be lower with mild stimulation. The cost-effectiveness of mild stimulation IVF in the United States has not been established.
conclusionsMild ovarian stimulation is an appropriate option to consider for certain patient groups or based on patient preference. However, significant potential disadvantages limit its widespread acceptability for patients in the United States at this time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.