Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24847018›Full record

ArticleHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2014

Progesterone replacement with vaginal gel versus i.m. injection: cycle and pregnancy outcomes in IVF patients receiving vitrified blastocysts.

Daniel B Shapiro, Jennifer A Pappadakis, Nancy M Ellsworth, Howard I Hait, Zsolt Peter Nagy

3 registry-linked trialsOpen access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 31 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT02254577 phase4completednot on this map

A Randomized, Three-armed, Non-Inferiority Study of Vaginal Progesterone (Endometrin®) Compared to Intramuscular Progesterone in Oil (PIO) in Infertile Subjects Undergoing Frozen Embryo Transfer (FET)

TypeinterventionalSponsorShady Grove Fertility Reproductive Science CenterRan2014 to 2018Enrolled1,139ConditionsInfertilityArmsEndometrin® plus Progesterone in Oil (PIO), Progesterone in Oil (PIO) Only
NCT02772120 phase4withdrawnnot on this map

Comparison of Vaginal Progesterone Gel (Crinone 8%®) and Intramuscular Progesterone in Vitrified-Warmed Blastocyst Transfer Cycles

TypeinterventionalSponsorBrigham and Women's HospitalEnrolled0ConditionsInfertilityArmsVaginal progesterone gel (Crinone® 8%), Intramuscular Progesterone
NCT04837768 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Effect of Intramuscular Progesterone Supplementation on Clinical and Ongoing Pregnancy Rates in Patients With Low Serum Progesterone Levels on the Day of Embryo Transfer in Artificial Frozen Cycles

TypeinterventionalSponsorCairo UniversityRan2021 to 2022Enrolled354ConditionsSerum Progesterone Levels, Progesterone Supplementation, Frozen Embryo Transfer, Clinical Pregnancy RatesArmsTwice-daily transvaginal progesterone supplementation, Twice-weekly intramuscular + Twice-daily transvaginal progesterone supplementation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 85 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Reproductive outcome after frozen embryo transfer with hormone replacement therapy according to luteal-phase support protocol: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Progesterone: The Key Factor of the Beginning of Life.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Luteal phase support in fresh and frozen embryo transfers.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2022
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel B ShapiroReproductive Biology Associates, 1100 Johnson Ferry Road, Suite 200, Atlanta, GA 30342, USA daniel.shapiro@rba-online.com.
Jennifer A PappadakisActavis, Inc., 400 Interpace Parkway, Parsippany, NJ 07054, USA.
Nancy M EllsworthReproductive Biology Associates, 1100 Johnson Ferry Road, Suite 200, Atlanta, GA 30342, USA.
Howard I HaitEdenridge Associates, LLC, 707 Mount Lebanon Road, Wilmington, DE 19803, USA.
Zsolt Peter NagyReproductive Biology Associates, 1100 Johnson Ferry Road, Suite 200, Atlanta, GA 30342, USA.
Reproductive Biology Associates · USAllergan (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

study questionDoes the type of luteal support affect pregnancy outcomes in recipients of vitrified blastocysts? SUMMARY ANSWER: Luteal support with vaginal progesterone gel or i.m. progesterone (IMP) results in comparable implantation and pregnancy rates in IVF patients receiving vitrified blastocysts. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In fresh IVF cycles, both IMP and vaginal progesterone have become the standard of care for luteal phase support. Due to conflicting data in replacement cycles, IMP is often considered to be the standard of care. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Retrospective analysis of 920 frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles between 1 January 2010 and 1 September 2012. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,

methodsPatients from a large, private practice undergoing autologous and donor FET using IMP or vaginal progesterone gel for luteal support were included in the analysis. IMP was used for luteal support in 682 FET cycles and vaginal progesterone gel was used in 238 FET cycles. Standard clinical outcomes of positive serum hCG levels, implantation, clinical pregnancy, spontaneous abortion and live birth were reported. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The IMP and vaginal progesterone gel groups had similar patient demographics for all characteristics assessed. Implantation rates (46.4 versus 45.6%, P = 0.81), clinical pregnancy rates (61.7 versus 60.5%, P = 0.80) and live birth rates (49.1 versus 48.9%, P > 0.99) were not significantly different between IMP and vaginal progesterone gel, respectively. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This study is limited by its retrospective design and by its lack of randomization to the type of luteal support. In addition, because no a priori expected rates of success could be provided for this retrospective investigation, it was not possible to estimate statistical power associated with the various outcomes presented. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE

findingsWith the recent trends toward single embryo transfer (SET) and use of vitrified blastocysts in FET cycles, our data with ∼40% of cycles being SET and use of exclusively vitrified blastocysts are more relevant to current practices than previous studies. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: Support for data collection and analysis was provided by Actavis, Inc. D.S. has received honoraria for lectures and participation in Scientific Advisory Boards for Actavis, Inc. J.P. is an employee of Actavis, Inc. N.E. has received payment from Actavis, Inc., for her time for data collection. H.H. has received payment from Actavis, Inc., for statistical analyses. Z.P.N. has nothing to disclose.

Indexed as

Fertilization in VitroFemaleHumansInjections, IntramuscularPregnancyPregnancy OutcomeProgesteroneRetrospective StudiesVaginal Creams, Foams, and JelliesProgesteroneVaginal Creams, Foams, and Jelliesfrozen embryo transferi.m. progesteroneluteal phase supportprogesterone gelvaginal progesterone

Identifiers

PMID24847018
PMCPMC4093993
OpenAlexW1969913056

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.