Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28573524›Full record

ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2017

Use of various gonadotropin and biosimilar formulations for in vitro fertilization cycles: results of a worldwide Web-based survey.

Mindy S Christianson, Gon Shoham, Kyle J Tobler, Yulian Zhao, Brent Monseur, Milton Leong, Zeev Shoham

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Management Strategies for POSEIDON Groups 3 and 4.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2019
    Review
  7. 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

7 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Mindy S ChristiansonDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. mchris21@jhmi.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6749-2773
Gon ShohamSackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Kyle J ToblerDivision of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Womack Army Medical Center, Fort Bragg, NC, USA.
Yulian ZhaoDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Brent MonseurThomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Milton LeongThe Women's Clinic, Hong Kong, SAR, China.
Zeev ShohamDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kaplan Medical Center, 76100, Rehovot, Israel.
Johns Hopkins University · USKaplan Medical Center · ILMayo Clinic in Arizona · USTel Aviv University · ILThomas Jefferson University · USWomack Army Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this study was to identify trends in gonadotropin therapy in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment worldwide.

methodsRetrospective evaluation utilizing the results of a Web-based survey, IVF-Worldwide ( www.IVF-worldwide.com ) was performed.

resultsThree hundred fourteen centers performing a total of 218,300 annual IVF cycles were evaluated. Respondents representing 62.2% of cycles (n = 135,800) did not believe there was a difference between urinary and recombinant gonadotropins in terms of efficacy and live birth rate. Of the respondents, 67.3% (n = 146,800) reported no difference between recombinant and urinary formulations in terms of short-term safety and risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. In terms of long-term safety using human urinary gonadotropins, 50.6% (n = 110,400) of respondents believe there are potential long-term risks including prion disease. For 95.3% of units (n = 208,000), the clinician was the decision maker determining which specific gonadotropins are used for IVF. Of the units, 62.6% (n = 136,700) identified efficacy as the most important factor in deciding which gonadotropin to prescribe. While most (67.3%, n = 146,800) were aware of new biosimilar recombinant FSH products entering the market, 92% (n = 201,000) reported they would like more information. A fraction of respondents (25.6%, n = 55,900) reported having experience with these new products, and of these, 80.3% (n = 46,200) reported that they were similar in efficacy as previously used gonadotropins in a similar patient group.

conclusionsRespondents representing the majority of centers do not believe a difference exists between urinary and recombinant gonadotropins with respect to efficacy and live birth rates. While many are aware of new biosimilar recombinant FSH products entering the market, over 90% desire more information on these products.

Indexed as

Biosimilar PharmaceuticalsBirth RateFemaleFertilization in VitroFollicle Stimulating HormoneGonadotropinsHumansOvarian Hyperstimulation SyndromeOvulation InductionRetrospective StudiesSurveys and QuestionnairesBiosimilar PharmaceuticalsFollicle Stimulating HormoneGonadotropinsAssisted reproductive technologyBiosimilarsControlled ovarian stimulationGonadotropins

Identifiers

PMID28573524
PMCPMC5533682
OpenAlexW2621363976

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.