ArticleInternational journal of fertility & sterility2018
Comparison of Cabergoline and Quinagolide in Prevention of Severe Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome among Patients Undergoing Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection.
Article in International journal of fertility & sterility, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of the Effectiveness of Various Medicines in the Prevention of Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Pooled it
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of the current study is to compare quinagolide with cabergoline in prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) among high risk women undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis randomized clinical trial study was performed from March 2015 to February 2017. One hundred and twenty six women undergoing ICSI who were at high risk of developing OHSS (having over 20 follicles of >12 mm), were randomized into two groups. The first group received cabergoline 0.5 mg and the second group received quinagolide 75 mg every day for 7 days commencing on the day of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist administration. Then OHSS symptoms as well as their severity were assessed according to standard definition, 3 and 6 days after GnRH agonist administration. Ascites were determined by trans-vaginal ultrasound. Other secondary points were the number of oocytes and the number of embryos and their quality. Quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed using Student's t test, and Chi-square or fisher's exact test, respectively. A P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsThe incidence of severe OHSS in the quinagolide-treated group was 3.1% while it was 15.8% in cabergolinetreated subjects (P<0.001). Ascites were less frequent after treatment with Quinagolide as compared to cabergoline (21.9% vs. 61.9%, respectively) (P=0.0001). There was no significant statistical deferences between the two groups in terms of mean age, number of oocytes, metaphase I and metaphase II oocytes, and germinal vesicles. There was a significant difference between cabergoline and quinagolide groups regarding the embryo number (P=0.037) with cabergoline-treated group showing a higher number of embryos. But, the number of good quality embryo in quinagolide- treated individuals was significantly higher than that of the cabergoline-treated group (P=0.001).
conclusionQuinagolide seems to be more effective than Cabergoline in prevention of OHSS in high-risk patients undergoing ICSI. (Registration number: IRCT2016053128187N1).
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.