Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27146151›Full record

SynthesisJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2016

Ovarian stimulation in the luteal phase: systematic review and meta-analysis.

C E Boots, M Meister, A R Cooper, A Hardi, E S Jungheim

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Management Strategies for POSEIDON Group 2.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2020
    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.

C E BootsObstetrics & Gynecology, Washington University, 4444 Forest Park, Suite 3100, St. Louis, MO, 63108, USA. bootsc@wudosis.wustl.edu.
M MeisterObstetrics & Gynecology, Washington University, 4444 Forest Park, Suite 3100, St. Louis, MO, 63108, USA.
A R CooperObstetrics & Gynecology, Washington University, 4444 Forest Park, Suite 3100, St. Louis, MO, 63108, USA.
A HardiWashington University, 660 Euclid Avenue, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA.
E S JungheimObstetrics & Gynecology, Washington University, 4444 Forest Park, Suite 3100, St. Louis, MO, 63108, USA.

Funding

Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational SciencesUL1TR000448 · NCATS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI EVANOFF, BRADLEY A · 2012 to 2016
$41.4M
A National Training Program in Reproductive MedicineT32HD040135 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI COUTIFARIS, CHRISTOS · 2002 to 2016
$3.6M
Women's Reproductive Health Research Career Development Program at W.U., St LouisK12HD063086 · NICHD · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI MACONES, GEORGE A · 2009 to 2013
$2.6M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000448NICHD NIH HHS K12 HD063086NICHD NIH HHS T32 HD040135
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this study was to evaluate whether outcomes are different if controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) is started in the luteal phase rather than the follicular phase.

methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Sixteen studies were included in the qualitative analysis, and eight studies with a total of 338 women were included in the quantitative analysis.

resultsCycles initiated in the luteal phase were slightly longer (WMD 1.1 days, 95 % CI 0.39-1.9) and utilized more total gonadotropins (WMD 817 IU, 95 % CI 489-1144). However, no differences were noted in peak estradiol levels (WMD -411 pg/ml, 95 % CI -906-84.7) or in the total number of oocytes retrieved (WMD 0.52 oocytes, 95 % CI -0.74-1.7). There were slightly more mature oocytes retrieved in the luteal phase (WMD 0.77 oocytes, 95 % CI 0.21-1.3), and fertilization rates were significantly higher (WMD 10 %, 95 % CI 0.03-0.18). While only three studies reported pregnancy outcomes, no difference was noted in the FET pregnancy rates after COS in the luteal versus follicular phase (RR 0.95, 95 % CI 0.56-1.7). A post hoc power analysis revealed that a sample of this size was sufficient to detect a clinically meaningful difference of 2 oocytes retrieved with 93 % power.

conclusionAlthough initiating COS in the luteal phase requires a longer stimulation and a higher dose of total gonadotropin, these differences are not clinically significant. Furthermore, COS initiated in the luteal phase does not compromise the quantity or quality of oocytes retrieved compared to outcomes of traditional stimulation in the follicular phase.

Indexed as

Pregnancy OutcomeAdultCryopreservationFemaleFertility PreservationFertilization in VitroFollicular PhaseHumansLuteal PhaseMenstrual CycleNeoplasmsOocyte RetrievalOocytesOvulation InductionPregnancyControlled ovarian stimulationFertility preservationIn vitro fertilizationLuteal phaseOocyte cryopreservation

Identifiers

PMID27146151
PMCPMC4974222

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.