ArticleFacts, views & vision in ObGyn2012
A prospective randomised study comparing a GnRH-antagonist versus a GnRH-agonist short protocol for ovarian stimulation in patients referred for IVF.
Article in Facts, views & vision in ObGyn, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Controlled ovarian stimulation protocols for assisted reproduction: a network meta-analysis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of the Long-Acting GnRH Agonist Follicular Protocol with the GnRH Antagonist Protocol in Women Undergoing In Vitro Fertilization: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Advances in therapy · 2021Pooled it
- Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists for assisted reproductive technology.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Analysis of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation protocols in women over 35 years old with poor ovarian response: a real-world study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Article
- Comparison of recombinant and urinary follicle-stimulating hormones over 2000 gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist cycles: a retrospective study.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- What should be the protocol selection after failure of in-vitro fertilization at normoresponder patients: Agonist or antagonist?Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare two short protocols for ovarian stimulation in IVF cycles using an antagonist and an agonist short protocol. The outcomes studied were dosis rec FSH needed, days of stimulation, number of oocytes retrieved and pregnancy outcome.
methodsA prospective randomised study design. INCLUSION CRITERIA: first or second IVF attempt in women younger than 40 years. In the agonist protocol (Suprefact®) nasal spray was used. In the antagonist protocol (Orgalutran)® was started as soon as at least 1 follicle of 12 mm was visualized on ultrasound.
results160 cycles were included in the study: 80 in the antagonist group and 80 in the agonist group. A higher dosis of recombinant FSH (rec FSH) was used for stimulation in the antagonist group (1897 IU versus 1655 IU). Pregnancy rate per ET in the antagonist group was 37% with an ongoing pregnancy rate of 21%/ET and an -implantation rate of 22%; versus respectively 39%, 20% and 22% in the agonist treated group. Live birth rate per started cylce was 19% in the antagonist group versus 20% in the agonist group.
conclusionThis study shows that implantation rates, ongoing pregnancy rates and live birth rates are equal in both groups. An identical number of oocytes was retrieved, with no difference in duration of the stimulation although a higher dosis of rec FSH was needed in the antagonist group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24753894PMC3987498What 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.