ArticleAdvances in therapy2018
Luteal Phase Ovarian Stimulation May Improve Oocyte Retrieval and Oocyte Quality in Poor Ovarian Responders Undergoing In Vitro Fertilization: Preliminary Results from a Single-Center Prospective Pilot Study.
Article in Advances in therapy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 24 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital
Prospective, Randomized Trial Comparing Luteal Phase Ovarian Stimulation, and Luteal Estradiol Priming Protocol for Patients With Diminished Ovarian Reserve - The LUTEAL Trial
Who cites it
24 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Luteal phase stimulation versus follicular phase stimulation in poor ovarian responders: A systematic review and a meta-analysis.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Pooled it
- ART outcomes following ovarian stimulation in the luteal phase:a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2021Pooled it
- How effective are the non-conventional ovarian stimulation protocols in ART? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2020Pooled it
- DuoStim - a reproducible strategy to obtain more oocytes and competent embryos in a short time-frame aimed at fertility preservation and IVF purposes. A systematic review.Upsala journal of medical sciences · 2020Pooled it
- Luteal Phase Ovarian Stimulation versus Follicular Phase Ovarian Stimulation results in different Human Cumulus cell genes expression: A pilot study.International journal of medical sciences · 2021Trial
- Improvement of Pregnancy Rate and Live Birth Rate in Poor Ovarian Responders by Intraovarian Administration of Autologous Menstrual Blood Derived- Mesenchymal Stromal Cells: Phase I/II Clinical Trial.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2020Trial
- Luteal phase stimulation versus follicular phase stimulation in poor ovarian responders: results of a randomized controlled trial.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2020Trial
- "Extended ovarian stimulation": a prolonged ovarian exposure to gonadotrophins leads to an increase in the oocyte yield-evidence from the DuoStim experience.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Review
- Luteal-phase stimulation does not compromise embryo euploidy or live birth outcomes compared to follicular-phase stimulation.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Smaller follicle diameter improves outcomes in natural LPOS: a retrospective cohort study.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Article
- Surfing follicular waves in ovarian stimulation: is there a role for LH in DuoStim protocols? A narrative review and SWOT analysis.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2025Review
- Comparison of luteal phase stimulation with follicular phase stimulation in poor ovarian response: a single-blinded randomized controlled trial.Contraception and reproductive medicine · 2024Article
- Conventional follicular-phase ovarian stimulation vs. luteal-phase stimulation in suboptimal responders: a randomized controlled trial.F&S reports · 2023Article
- The effects of intraovarian injection of autologous menstrual blood-derived mesenchymal stromal cells on pregnancy outcomes in women with poor ovarian response.Stem cell research & therapy · 2023Article
- Dominant follicle growth patterns and associated endocrine dynamics in anovulatory and ovulatory waves in women.Reproduction & fertility · 2023Article
- Development of a predictive model for luteal phase oocyte retrieval in poor responders undergoing natural cycle IVF.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Successful outcome of a pregnancy derived from premature ovulation in a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol: A case report.Clinical case reports · 2021Article
- Efficacy of an Internet-Based Intervention to Promote a Healthy Lifestyle on the Reproductive Parameters of Overweight and Obese Women: Study Protocol for a Randomised Controlled Trial.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Initial ovarian sensitivity index predicts embryo quality and pregnancy potential in the first days of controlled ovarian stimulation.Journal of ovarian research · 2020Observational
- RescueInternational journal of fertility & sterility · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLuteal phase ovarian stimulation (LPOS) has been proven a feasible protocol for infertile patients. High progesterone level in the luteal phase could physiologically inhibit premature luteinizing hormone surge, from which poor ovarian responders (PORs) could obtain benefits. Therefore, we aimed to compare clinical outcomes between LPOS and follicular phase ovarian stimulation (FPOS) protocol in PORs undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF).
methodsThis prospective pilot study was performed at one tertiary center from January 2016 to October 2017. A total of 60 PORs who met Bologna criteria and undergoing IVF were enrolled. Thirty PORs were allocated to the LPOS group and 30 PORs were allocated to the FPOS group. Basic characteristics, cycle characteristics, and pregnancy outcomes were compared between the two groups.
resultsThe length of stimulation was significantly longer in the LPOS group than in the FPOS group. The numbers of retrieved oocytes, metaphase II oocytes, fertilized oocytes, and day-3 embryos were significantly higher in the LPOS group than in the FPOS group. Conversely, we could not find any significant difference for clinical pregnancy rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, abortion rate, and cancellation rate. The multivariate analysis showed that only LPOS (p = 0.007) was significantly associated the possibility to retrieve three or more oocytes, whereas basal follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) < 8 IU/l (p = 0.103) and antral follicle count (AFC) ≥ 3 (p = 0.143) did not significantly affect this event.
conclusionLPOS allows improved oocyte retrieval and oocyte quality in PORs with respect to FPOS, despite comparable pregnancy outcomes. LPOS may be considered a feasible option for oocytes accumulation in PORs.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03238833.
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.