Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29695208›Full record

Trial reportThe Journal of international medical research2018

Comparison of modified agonist, mild-stimulation and antagonist protocols for in vitro fertilization in patients with diminished ovarian reserve.

Rong Yu, Hao Jin, Xuefeng Huang, Jinju Lin, Peiyu Wang

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Journal of international medical research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Rong Yu1 Reproductive Centre, First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang Province, China.
Hao Jin2 Organ Transplant Centre, First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang Province, China.
Xuefeng Huang1 Reproductive Centre, First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang Province, China.
Jinju Lin1 Reproductive Centre, First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang Province, China.
Peiyu Wang1 Reproductive Centre, First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang Province, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective To compare the efficacy of three protocols for ovarian stimulation in patients with diminished ovarian reserve during in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. Methods This prospective randomized study enrolled patients with diminished ovarian reserve who underwent cycles of IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. The patients were randomly divided into three groups: a modified gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist protocol (group A); (ii) a mild stimulation protocol (group B); or (iii) an antagonist protocol (group C). Demographic characteristics, clinical variables and pregnancy outcomes were compared between the groups. Results A total of 116 patients were enrolled in the study: 54 in group A, 52 in group B and 60 in group C. Group B (32.69%) had a significantly higher cycle cancellation rate compared with groups A (11.11%) and C (16.67%). The early abortion rate of group C (44.44%) was significantly higher than group A (12.50%), but not significantly different from group B (16.67%). There were no significant differences in the clinical pregnancy rates and live birth rates among the three groups. Conclusion A modified GnRH agonist protocol achieved a comparable pregnancy rate to those of the mild stimulation protocol and antagonist protocol, whilst having lower cycle cancellation and early abortion rates.

Indexed as

Clinical ProtocolsAdultFemaleFertility Agents, FemaleFertilization in VitroGonadotropin-Releasing HormoneHumansLetrozoleLuteolytic AgentsMaleMenotropinsOvarian FollicleOvarian ReserveOvulation InductionPregnancyPregnancy RatecetrorelixFertility Agents, FemaleGonadotropin-Releasing HormoneLetrozoleLuteolytic AgentsMenotropinsTriptorelin PamoateantagonistGonadotrophin releasing hormone agonisthuman menopausal gonadotrophinin vitro fertilizationovarian reserve

Identifiers

PMID29695208
PMCPMC6023056

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.