ArticleTurkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology2017
Comparison of corifollitropin alfa and daily recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone in poor responder patients undergoing in vitro fertilization cycles.
Article in Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the effect of corifollitropin alfa (CFA) and recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) in poor-responder patients undergoing antagonist cycles. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study was a retrospective analysis of the treatment results of 214 poor responder patients who had been admitted to the In Vitro Fertilization Unit of İzmir Medical Park Hospital between November 2014 and November 2016. Intracytoplasmic sperm injections were performed in 38 patients (group 1) with CFA, and the remaining 176 (group 2) with rFSH for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation.
resultsThe age, body mass index, anti-müllerian hormone level, duration of infertility, duration of induction and antral follicle number were similar in the two groups. There was no difference in the total aspirated oocyte counts, mature oocyte ratio, fertilization rate, implantation rate, and clinical pregnancy rates between the two groups. The implantation rate was 9/38 (23.6%) in group 1 and 42/176 (23.8%) in group 2, whereas the clinical pregnancy rates were 16.3% and 17.2%, respectively.
conclusionNo difference was found in terms of oocyte count, fertilization rate, implantation rate, and clinical pregnancy rates of CFA or rFSH use in the antagonist cycles in poor-responder patients.
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.