Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26059981›Full record

Trial reportMolecular medicine reports2015

Recombinant LH supplementation during IVF cycles with a GnRH-antagonist in estimated poor responders: A cross-matched pilot investigation of the optimal daily dose and timing.

Salvatore Gizzo, Alessandra Andrisani, Marco Noventa, Serena Manfè, Alessandra Oliva, Michele Gangemi, Giovanni Battista Nardelli, Guido Ambrosini

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Molecular medicine reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Prevention of Premature Ovulation by Administration of Gonadotropin Releasing Hormone Antagonist the day After Ovulation Triggering in Diminished Ovarian Reserve Patients.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2022
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Salvatore GizzoDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Assisted Reproductive Unit of the Gynecological and Obstetrics Clinic, University of Padua, I-35128 Padua, Italy.
Alessandra AndrisaniDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Assisted Reproductive Unit of the Gynecological and Obstetrics Clinic, University of Padua, I-35128 Padua, Italy.
Marco NoventaDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Assisted Reproductive Unit of the Gynecological and Obstetrics Clinic, University of Padua, I-35128 Padua, Italy.
Serena ManfèDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Assisted Reproductive Unit of the Gynecological and Obstetrics Clinic, University of Padua, I-35128 Padua, Italy.
Alessandra OlivaDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Assisted Reproductive Unit of the Gynecological and Obstetrics Clinic, University of Padua, I-35128 Padua, Italy.
Michele GangemiDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Assisted Reproductive Unit of the Gynecological and Obstetrics Clinic, University of Padua, I-35128 Padua, Italy.
Giovanni Battista NardelliDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Assisted Reproductive Unit of the Gynecological and Obstetrics Clinic, University of Padua, I-35128 Padua, Italy.
Guido AmbrosiniDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Assisted Reproductive Unit of the Gynecological and Obstetrics Clinic, University of Padua, I-35128 Padua, Italy.
University of Padua · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although it is widely accepted that patients, who are considered poor responders to in vitro fertilization (IVF) benefit from recombinant luteinizing hormone (rLH) supplementation during an in vitro fertilization cycle, particularly when gonadotropin‑releasing hormone (GnRH)‑antagonist (ant) treatment is used the optimal administration timing and daily dose of rLH remains to be elucidated. The aim of the present study was to investigate the optimal timing of rLH‑supplementation to improve ovarian response, embryo quality, endometrial thickness and pregnancy rate in infertile, estimated poor responders to IVF, undergoing GnRH‑ant treatment. In addition, the present study aimed to evaluate the optimal daily dose to achieve the same outcomes. A prospective‑randomized‑cross‑matched investigation was performed on 40 patients undergoing a GnRH‑ant‑treatment‑cycle The patients were randomly assigned to either group A (rLH‑75 IU/day) or group B (rLH‑150 IU/day) and further randomized into subgroup A1/B1, in which rLH was administered at recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH) administration, and subgroup A2/B2, in which rLH was administered at GnRH‑ant administration. Patients who did not become pregnant during the first cycle (35 patients), were treated a second time, cross‑matched for groups and subgroups. Improved ovarian response, embryo quality and pregnancy rate were achieved by administering rLH at 150 IU/day, starting from GnRH‑ant administration, independently from the total rLH dose administered. Improved endometrial thickness at oocyte retrieval day was achieved by administering rLH at 150 IU from the start of rFSH administration. These data led to the hypothesis that ovarian responses are affected by the timing of administration more than the total‑dose of rLH. The optimal window to administer rLH appears to be the mid‑to‑late follicular phase, despite the fact that rLH‑supplementation in the early‑follicular phase appeared to increase endometrial thickness and to enhance its morphology. Standardization of the optimal daily dose and supplementation timing of rLH may resolve the debate regarding its efficacy in increasing the number of pregnancies and neonatal survival rates.

Indexed as

AdultBody Mass IndexChorionic GonadotropinDose-Response Relationship, DrugEstradiolFemaleFertilization in VitroGonadotropin-Releasing HormoneHumansLuteinizing HormonePilot ProjectsPregnancyPregnancy RateProgesteroneProspective StudiesRecombinant ProteinsChorionic GonadotropinEstradiolGonadotropin-Releasing HormoneLuteinizing HormoneProgesteroneRecombinant Proteins

Identifiers

PMID26059981
PMCPMC4526099
OpenAlexW2134284961

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.