ArticleClinical medicine insights. Reproductive health2011
Observational Study to Assess the Therapeutic Value of Four Ovarian Hyperstimulation Protocols in IVF After Pituitary Suppression with GnRH Antagonists in Normally Responding Women.
Article in Clinical medicine insights. Reproductive health, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interplay Between mTOR and Hippo Signaling in the Ovary: Clinical Choice Guidance Between Different Gonadotropin Preparations for Better IVF.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2021Review
- Gonadotropin versus Follicle-Stimulating Hormone for Ovarian Response in Patients Undergoing in vitro Fertilization: A Retrospective Cohort Comparison.Current therapeutic research, clinical and experimental · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the clinical results of four different protocols of COH for IVF-ICSI in normovulatory women, using in all cases pituitary suppression with GnRH antagonists. MATERIALS/
methodsA single center, open label, parallel-controlled, prospective, post-authorization study under the approved conditions for use where 305 normal responders women who were candidates to COH were assigned to r-FSH +hp-hMG (n = 51, Group I), hp-hMG (n = 61, Group II), fixed-dose r-FSH (n = 118, Group III), and r-FSH with potential dose adjustment (n = 75, Group IV) to subsequently undergo IVF-ICSI.
resultsDuring stimulation, Group IV needed significantly more days of stimulation as compared to Group II [8.09 ± 1.25 vs. 7.62 ± 1.17; P < 0.05], but was the group in which more oocytes were recovered [Group I: 9.43 ± 4.99 vs. Group II: 8.96 ± 4.82 vs. Group III: 8.78 ± 3.72 vs. Group IV: 11.62 ± 5.80; P < 0.05]. No significant differences were seen between the groups in terms of clinical and ongoing pregnancy, but among patients in whom two embryos with similar quality parameters (ASEBIR) were transferred, the group treated with hp-hMG alone achieved a significantly greater clinical pregnancy rate as compared to all other groups [Group I: 31.6%, Group II: 56.4%, Group III: 28.7%, Group IV: 32.7%; P < 0.05].
conclusionsAlthough randomized clinical trials should be conducted to achieve a more reliable conclusion, these observations support the concept that stimulation with hp-hMG could be beneficial in normal responders women undergoing pituitary suppression with GnRH antagonists.
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.