ArticleReproductive medicine and biology2012
Comparison between the gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol and the gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist long protocol for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in the first in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer cycle in an unspecified population of infertile couples.
Article in Reproductive medicine and biology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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 citations in OpenAlex.
- A randomized controlled trial of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist versus gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist in Iranian infertile couples: oocyte gene expression.Daru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences · 2014Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe aimed to compare the efficacy of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol and a GnRH agonist long protocol used in the first in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) cycle in an unspecified population of infertile couples.
methodsFifty and 34 patients were treated with a GnRH agonist long protocol (agonist group) and GnRH antagonist protocol (antagonist group), respectively, in the first treatment cycle. The primary and secondary outcome measures were cumulative live birth rates after fresh and cryopreserved-thawed ETs and incidence of grades II and III ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), respectively.
resultsNo significant differences were observed in clinical pregnancy rates (38.0 vs. 32.4%) and live birth rates (22.0 vs. 23.5%), which included both fresh and cryopreserved-thawed ETs, between the 2 groups. However, the incidence of grade III OHSS was significantly lower with the GnRH antagonist protocol than the GnRH agonist long protocol.
conclusionsUsed in the first IVF-ET cycle in an unspecified population of infertile patients, the GnRH antagonist protocol showed the same clinical outcome as the GnRH agonist long protocol.
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.