SynthesisPloS one2016
Subcutaneous Progesterone Is Effective and Safe for Luteal Phase Support in IVF: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of the Phase III Trials.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04365127 (A Single Center, Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Safety and Efficacy of Progesterone for the Treatment of COVID-19 in Hospitalized Men), which is not on this map. Cited by 20 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.
A Single Center, Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Safety and Efficacy of Progesterone for the Treatment of COVID-19 in Hospitalized Men
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- Single-Dose Versus Multiple-Dose GnRH Agonist for Luteal-Phase Support in Women Undergoing IVF/ICSI Cycles: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Pooled it
- Luteal phase support for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection fresh cycles: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2021Pooled it
- Luteal Phase Support Using Subcutaneous Progesterone: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Oral dydrogesterone along with vaginal micronized progesterone supplementation for luteal phase support in IVF patients, and its impact on pregnancy and live birth rates: a prospective randomized trial.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Trial
- Trial
- Comparison of Subcutaneous and Vaginal Progesterone Used for Luteal Phase Support in Patients Undergoing Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection Cycles.JBRA assisted reproduction · 2021Trial
- Progestogen supplementation to prevent miscarriage: Evidence and controversies.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Review
- Supplementary dydrogesterone is beneficial as luteal phase support in artificial frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles compared to micronized progesterone alone.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Article
- Progesterone: The Key Factor of the Beginning of Life.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Adding Weekly Intramuscular Progesterone to a Twice Daily Vaginal Progesterone Capsule for Luteal Phase Support in IVF/ICSI Cycles Results in Similar Live Birth Rates.JBRA assisted reproduction · 2022Article
- Key to Life: Physiological Role and Clinical Implications of Progesterone.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Subcutaneous progesterone versus vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization: A retrospective analysis from daily clinical practice.Clinical and experimental reproductive medicine · 2021Article
- Luteal-phase support in assisted reproductive technology: An ongoing challenge.International journal of reproductive biomedicine · 2021Review
- Subcutaneous progesterone versus vaginal progesterone for luteal-phase support in frozen-thawed embryo transfer: A cross-sectional study.International journal of reproductive biomedicine · 2021Article
- A 10-year follow-up on the practice of luteal phase support using worldwide web-based surveys.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2021Article
- Luteal Phase Support in IVF: Comparison Between Evidence-Based Medicine and Real-Life Practices.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2020Article
- Ovarian manipulation in ART: going beyond physiological standards to provide best clinical outcomes.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2018Review
- Endometrial thickness on the day of embryo transfer is a poor predictor of IVF treatment outcome.Human reproduction open · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo summarize efficacy and safety data on a new progesterone compound which is available for subcutaneous administration as compared to vaginally administered progesterone for luteal phase support in patients undergoing IVF treatment.
designData from two randomized phase III trials (07EU/Prg06 and 07USA/Prg05) performed according to GCP standards with a total sample size of 1435 per-protocol patients were meta-analyzed on an individual patient data level.
settingUniversity affiliated reproductive medicine unit. PATIENTS: Subcutaneous progesterone was administered to a total of 714 subjects and vaginal progesterone was administered to a total of 721 subjects who underwent fresh embryo transfer after ovarian stimulation followed by IVF or ICSI. The subjects were between 18 and 42 years old and had a BMI <30 kg/m2.
interventionsSubcutaneous progesterone 25 mg daily vs. either progesterone vaginal gel 90 mg daily (07EU/Prg06) or 100 mg intravaginal twice a day (07USA/Prg05) for luteal phase support in IVF patients.
main outcome measuresOngoing pregnancy rate beyond 10 gestational weeks, live birth rate and OHSS risk.
resultsThe administration of subcutaneous progesterone versus intra-vaginal progesterone had no impact on ongoing pregnancy likelihood (OR = 0.865, 95% CI 0.694 to 1.077; P = n.s.), live birth likelihood (OR = 0.889, 95% CI 0.714 to 1.106; P = n.s.) or OHSS risk (OR = 0.995, 95% CI 0.565 to 1.754; P = n.s.) in regression analyses accounting for clustering of patients within trials, while adjusting for important confounders. Only female age and number of oocytes retrieved were significant predictors of live birth likelihood and OHSS risk.
conclusionNo statistical significant or clinical significant differences exist between subcutaneous and vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support.
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.