Observational studyMedicine2018
Neonate female to male ratio after assisted reproduction following antagonist and agonist protocols.
Observational study in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The association of embryo developmental rate and morphological grading with neonatal sex ratio.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome Is Associated with a High Secondary Sex Ratio in Fresh IVF Cycles with Cleavage-Stage Embryo Transfer: Results for a Cohort Study.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2021Article
- Secondary sex ratio in assisted reproduction: an analysis of 1 376 454 treatment cycles performed in the UK.Human reproduction open · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We retrospectively compared neonatal sex after antagonist- versus long-stimulation protocols followed by fresh in vitro fertilization (IVF) or fresh intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) with either protocol. We reviewed data for 762 IVF/ICSI cycles in 2015, including 23 IVF procedures. We summarized sex outcomes in the entire cohort, and for the additional subgroups: embryo transfer day and number of embryos transferred, and number of oocytes recovered and maternal age. Among 169 live births for all protocols combined, 50.9% of babies were male, and we saw no difference between the antagonist versus long-stimulation groups (52.3% vs 48.3% male babies, respectively; P = .740). Our results also showed no significant difference in sex proportion when comparing IVF versus ICSI, although a higher proportion of babies were male with the antagonist-ICSI protocol. Differences between the additional subgroups were also neither clinically nor statistically significant.
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.