Trial reportReproductive health2015
Comparative prospective study of 2 ovarian stimulation protocols in poor responders: effect on implantation rate and ongoing pregnancy.
Trial report in Reproductive health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 4 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effectiveness of hormone add-on strategies in ovarian stimulation for women with poor ovarian response: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Pooled it
- Controlled ovarian stimulation protocols for assisted reproduction: a network meta-analysis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Meta-analysis of GnRH-antagonists versus GnRH-agonists in poor responder protocols.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2021Pooled it
- Oral contraceptive pill, progestogen or oestrogen pretreatment for ovarian stimulation protocols for women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Association between acupuncture and IVF outcomes in women with poor ovarian response: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Article
- Recommendations for the management of GnRH-ant for ovarian stimulation in the assistant reproductive process: Benefits and harms for different ovarian response population.Clinical and public health guidelines · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of GnRH Agonist Short Protocol Versus GnRH Antagonist Protocol in POSEIDON Groups 3 and 4: a Retrospective Cohort Study.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2023Article
- Live Birth Rates in Women Under 38 Years Old with AMH Level < 1.2 ng/ml in the First In Vitro Fertilization + / - Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection: Retrospective Study and Arguments for Care.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2023Article
- Fertility With Early Reduction of Ovarian Reserve.Cureus · 2022Review
- Researching the Phenomenon of Poor Ovarian Responders and Management Strategies in IVF: A Narrative Review.Acta medica academica · 2022Review
- The Conundrum of Poor Ovarian Response: From Diagnosis to Treatment.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Ovarian stimulation modalities in poor respondersTurkish journal of medical sciences · 2019Review
- Pregnancy outcome in delayed start antagonist versus microdose flare GnRH agonist protocol in poor responders undergoing IVF/ICSI: An RCT.International journal of reproductive biomedicine · 2018Article
- Article
- Fertility with early reduction of ovarian reserve: the last straw that breaks the Camel's back.Fertility research and practice · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn patients treated with IVF, the incidence of poor ovarian response (POR) after ovarian stimulation varies from 9 to 25 %. However, at present, there are no clear guidelines for treating these poor responders. This study was designed to compare two different ovarian stimulation protocols and addresses future perspectives in the management of these unfortunate patients.
methodFour hundred and forty poor responders were studied during their second IVF cycle. They had all failed to become pregnant during their first IVF cycle where the long GnRH-agonist stimulation protocol (P1) was used. Patients were prospectively randomly assigned to 2 protocol groups (P2 or P3, 220 patients in each arm) at the start of ovarian stimulation according to the order of entry into the study including one patient per each stimulation protocols: The P2 group was treated with a contraceptive pill + flare-up GnRH-agonist protocol and the P3 group with the GnRH-antagonist protocol. The ovarian stimulation characteristics as well as the clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates were compared. RESULT(S): Although the numbers of embryos obtained and transferred were significantly higher with the P2 protocol, the implantation and ongoing pregnancy rates per transfer were the same in the two studied groups (8.9 % versus 14.6 % and 8.4 % versus 14.2 % for the P2 and P3 protocols, respectively). Good prognostic factors for ongoing pregnancy with both protocols were: a maternal age <36, no tobacco consumption, a total dose of gonadotropins injection <5000 IU and an endometrial thickness >10 mm. CONCLUSION(S): In poorly responding patients treated with IVF, the implantation and ongoing pregnancy rates per transfer were not significantly different between the two protocols studied: contraceptive pill + flare-up GnRH-agonist protocol and the GnRH-antagonist protocol. It is suggested that current strategies for the management of poor responders be reconsidered in the light of the potential contribution of age and the effect of life style changes on fertility potential. A customised policy of ovarian stimulation in these patients including mild stimulation protocols, sequential IVF cycles, oocytes-embryos freeze all protocols and blastocyst transfers after screening may improve the clinical outcome.
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.