Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30403766›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

GnRH agonist long protocol versus GnRH antagonist protocol for various aged patients with diminished ovarian reserve: A retrospective study.

Ming-Chao Huang, Shu-Ling Tzeng, Chun-I Lee, Hsiu-Hui Chen, Chun-Chia Huang, Tsung-Hsien Lee, Maw-Sheng Lee

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ming-Chao HuangInstitute of Medicine, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan.
Shu-Ling TzengInstitute of Medicine, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan.
Chun-I LeeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan.
Hsiu-Hui ChenDivision of Infertility Clinic, Lee Women's Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan.
Chun-Chia HuangDivision of Infertility Clinic, Lee Women's Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan.
Tsung-Hsien LeeInstitute of Medicine, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan.
Maw-Sheng LeeInstitute of Medicine, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0001-6234-5432
Chung Shan Medical University · TWMackay Memorial Hospital · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This retrospective analysis compared the efficiency of the gonadotropin- releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist (GnRH-ant) protocol and the GnRH agonist long (GnRH-a) protocol for patients with diminished ovarian reserve (DOR). A total of 1,233 patients with DOR (anti-Mullerian hormone <1.1 ng/mL) were recruited for this retrospective case-control study. They were divided into two groups according to female age. Younger patients were assigned to POSEIDON group3 (PG3: age ≤35 years); older patients were assigned to POSEIDON group 4 (PG4: age >35 years). All patients with DOR underwent controlled ovarian stimulation and fresh embryo transfer (ET) on day 3. We recruited 283 GnRH-a and 54 GnRH-ant cycles for PG3, and 663 GnRH-a and 233 GnRH-ant cycles for PG4. In PG3, the GnRH-a protocol was associated with a lower ET cancellation rate (30/283 = 10.2% vs. 12/54 = 22.2%, p = 0.018) and a higher live birth rate (7/54 = 13.0% vs. 78/283 = 27.6%, p = 0.024) than the GnRH-ant protocol for the initiated cycles. Furthermore, the GnRH-a protocol was correlated with a higher implantation rate than the GnRH-ant protocol for ET cycles (146/577 = 25.3% vs. 11/103 = 10.7%, P = 0.027). No differences in the ET cancellation rate, live birth rate and implantation rate between GnRH-a and GnRH-ant groups were observed among PG4 patients. In conclusion, the GnRH-a protocol was more effective than the GnRH-ant protocol for young patients with DOR. The low ET cancellation rate and high implantation rate may be related to embryo quality or endometrial receptivity, which warrant further investigation.

Indexed as

Ovarian ReserveReproductive Techniques, AssistedAdultAge FactorsCase-Control StudiesClinical ProtocolsFemaleGonadotropin-Releasing HormoneHormone AntagonistsHormonesHumansLive BirthRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeGonadotropin-Releasing HormoneHormone AntagonistsHormones

Identifiers

PMID30403766
PMCPMC6221355
OpenAlexW2899996285

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.