Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30875186›Full record

Observational studyJBRA assisted reproduction2019

A comparison of the effects of three luteal phase support protocols with estrogen on in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer outcomes in patients on a GnRH antagonist protocol.

Juliano Brum Scheffer, Bruno Brum Scheffer, Rafaela Friche de Carvalho, Ana Paula Aguiar, Daniel H Mendez Lozano, Julie Labrosse, Michael Grynberg

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in JBRA assisted reproduction, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Luteal-phase support in assisted reproductive technology: An ongoing challenge.International journal of reproductive biomedicine · 2021
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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 2 countries.

Juliano Brum SchefferIBRRA - Brazilian Institute of Assisted Reproduction, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.
Bruno Brum SchefferIBRRA - Brazilian Institute of Assisted Reproduction, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.
Rafaela Friche de CarvalhoIBRRA - Brazilian Institute of Assisted Reproduction, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.
Ana Paula AguiarIBRRA - Brazilian Institute of Assisted Reproduction, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.
Daniel H Mendez LozanoSchool of Medicine, Tecnológico de Monterrey and Center for Reproductive Medicine CREASIS San Pedro Monterrey, México.
Julie LabrosseDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, Hôpital Jean Verdier (AP-HP), University Paris XIII.
Michael GrynbergDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, Hôpital Jean Verdier (AP-HP), University Paris XIII.
Université Sorbonne Paris Nord · FRTecnológico de Monterrey · MX

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the effects of three different luteal phase support protocols with estrogen on the pregnancy rates and luteal phase hormone profiles of patients undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) cycles. A secondary objective was to evaluate which ovarian reserve markers correlated with pregnancy rates.

methodsThis retrospective observational study was carried out at a private tertiary reproductive medicine teaching and research center. The study enrolled 104 patients undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) on an antagonist protocol for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH). The women were divided into three groups based on the route of administration of estrogen (E2) for luteal phase support: oral (Primogyna); transdermal patches (Estradott); or transdermal gel (Oestrogel Pump). The administration of estrogen provided the equivalent to 4 mg of estradiol daily. All women received 600mg of vaginal progesterone (P) per day (Utrogestan) for luteal phase support. Blood samples were drawn on the day of hCG administration and on the day of beta hCG testing to measure E2 and P levels. Clinical pregnancy rate (PR) was the main endpoint.

resultsThe patients included in the three groups were comparable. No significant differences were found in implantation rates, clinical PR, miscarriage rates, multiple-pregnancy rates, E2 or P levels on the day of beta hCG measurement. Concerning ovarian reserve markers, significant correlations between testing positive for clinical pregnancy and AMH (r = 0.66, p<0.0001) and E2 levels on beta hCG measurement day (r = 0.77; p<.0001) were observed.

conclusionsNo significant differences were seen in the pregnancy rates of patients submitted to IVF-ET cycles with GnRH antagonists given oral, transdermal patches, or transdermal gel E2 during the luteal phase. A correlation was found between clinical pregnancy rate and AMH and E2 levels on beta hCG testing day.

Indexed as

Abortion, SpontaneousAdultEmbryo TransferEstradiolFemaleFertility Agents, FemaleFertilization in VitroGonadotropin-Releasing HormoneHormone AntagonistsHumansInfertilityLuteal PhaseMaleOvulation InductionPregnancyPregnancy OutcomeEstradiolFertility Agents, FemaleGonadotropin-Releasing HormoneHormone Antagonistsestradiolestrogenluteal phase supportpregnancy rateprogesterone

Identifiers

PMID30875186
PMCPMC6724398
OpenAlexW2921504312

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.