ArticleScientific reports2019
Comparison of recombinant and urinary follicle-stimulating hormones over 2000 gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist cycles: a retrospective study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Does the recovery of serum FSH influence the ovarian sensitivity index in the follicular-phase depot GnRH agonist protocol?BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Comparison of efficacy, safety, and economy of recombinant and urinary follicle-stimulating hormone in women with a predicted normal response undergoing assisted reproductive technology.Journal of ovarian research · 2025Article
- Ovarian sensitivity index affects clinical pregnancy and live birth rates in gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist and antagonistFrontiers in endocrinology · 2024Article
- Assisted reproductive technology and interactions between serum basal FSH/LH and ovarian sensitivity index.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Article
- The cumulative live birth rate of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone alfa verse urinary human follicle-stimulating hormone for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology cycles.Journal of ovarian research · 2022Article
- Analysis of endometrial thickness patterns and pregnancy outcomes considering 12,991 fresh IVF cycles.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this paper was to compare the effect of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) and urinary follicle-stimulating hormone (uFSH) on pregnancy rates and live birth rates with the gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol in China. This retrospective study was conducted from January 2014 through August 2017. Patients treated with uFSH had significantly higher levels of luteinizing hormone (3.79 mIU/ml vs. 3.09 mIU/ml) and progesterone (0.93 ng/ml vs. 1.16 ng/ml) on the day of human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) administration, and they also had higher pregnancy rates (24.19% vs. 22.86%). There was no significant difference in the rate of live births. In the logistic regression results of the rFSH group, the pregnancy rate was positively correlated with the level of luteinizing hormone, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.09 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.00-1.18; P = 0.048). In the uFSH group, the pregnancy rate was negatively correlated with the progesterone level on the day of HCG administration, with an OR of 0.47 (95% CI: 0.27-0.77; P = 0.004). Our research concluded that uFSH performed better than rFSH in terms of pregnancy rates when it was associated with the GnRH antagonist protocol. Meanwhile, no significant differences in the rate of live births were observed between the two groups.
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.