Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28358705›Full record

Trial reportIn vivo (Athens, Greece)

Mild

Charalampos Siristatidis, George Salamalekis, Konstantinos Dafopoulos, George Basios, Paraskevi Vogiatzi, Nikolaos Papantoniou

Open access · diamondAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in In vivo (Athens, Greece). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Charalampos SiristatidisAssisted Reproduction Unit, Third Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Attikon Hospital, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece harrysiri@yahoo.gr.
George SalamalekisAssisted Reproduction Unit, Third Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Attikon Hospital, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Konstantinos DafopoulosAssisted Reproduction Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Thessaly, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Larissa, Greece.
George BasiosAssisted Reproduction Unit, Third Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Attikon Hospital, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Paraskevi VogiatziAssisted Reproduction Unit, Third Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Attikon Hospital, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Nikolaos PapantoniouAssisted Reproduction Unit, Third Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Attikon Hospital, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens · GRUniversity General Hospital Attikon · GRUniversity of Thessaly · GR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimMild stimulation protocols have been implemented to be offered to subfertile patients who respond poorly to ovarian stimulation. We aimed to compare the efficacy of mild versus conventional gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH)-agonist and antagonist protocols in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization/intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) cycles. PATIENTS AND

methodsA total of 58 poorly-responding patients were divided into two groups: mild group (n=33), receiving clomiphene citrate 100 mg and 0.25 mg of cetrorelix with 150 IU of gonadotrophins daily; conventional group (n=25), undergoing the long GnRH-agonist or -antagonist protocols. The primary outcome was the number of cumulus oocyte complexes (COCs) retrieved.

resultsA lower number of COCs [median (range)=1 (0-4) vs. 3 (0-8.4), p<0.001] was retrieved in the mild stimulation compared to the conventional group. Secondary outcomes favored the conventional group, whereas live birth (9.1% vs. 12%), clinical pregnancy (12.1% vs. 20%) and miscarriage rate (40% vs. 40%) were similar in the two groups.

conclusionMild ovarian stimulation is inferior to conventional regimes when applied to poor responders undergoing IVF/ICSI, in terms of the numbers of retrieved COCs.

Indexed as

Fertilization in VitroSperm Injections, IntracytoplasmicAdultCase-Control StudiesCell CountFemaleHumansMiddle AgedOocyte RetrievalOocytesOvulation InductionPregnancyPregnancy RateProspective StudiesTreatment Outcomeclomiphene citrateControlled ovarian hyperstimulationmild stimulationpoor respondersrecombinant FSH

Identifiers

PMID28358705
PMCPMC5411750
OpenAlexW2593137326

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.