ArticleReproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E2019
Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation vs mild stimulation in women with advanced age above 40: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Modified letrozole vs GnRH antagonist protocols in ovarian aging women for IVF: an open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled trial.Nature communications · 2026Trial
- Comparison of progesterone protocol versus gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol in terms of preventing premature LH surge and assisted reproductive technology outcome in infertile women: a randomized controlled trial.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Trial
- Risk factors and treatment strategies for live birth in women with high BMI undergoing ART.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- Age-stratified analysis of euploidy rates in Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation (PPOS) utilizing micronized progesterone or dydrogesterone versus GnRH analogues.Journal of ovarian research · 2025Article
- Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol in patients undergoing assisted reproductive technology.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2025Review
- Development and validation of a nomogram for failure to collect oocytes in POSEIDON Groups 3 and 4 undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Comparison of fixed and flexible progestin-primed ovarian stimulation in women classified in patient-oriented strategies encompassing individualized oocyte number (POSEIDON) group 4.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Article
- The effect of letrozole overlapped with gonadotropin on IVF outcomes in women with DOR or aged over 40 years old with repeated cycles.Journal of ovarian research · 2023Article
- Fixed Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Antagonist ProtocolFrontiers in endocrinology · 2021Article
- Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation Versus Mild Stimulation Protocol in Advanced Age Women With Diminished Ovarian Reserve Undergoing Their FirstFrontiers in endocrinology · 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
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrevious studies have demonstrated that progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol was a feasible and efficient method in in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle. However, its application in women with advanced age has not been determined yet. The purpose of this study was to investigate its efficacy in women aged ≥40 years old.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included patients with ages of ≥40 years old at the time of ovarian stimulation. The embryonic and clinical outcome of mild stimulation and PPOS were compared. Primary outcome was top-quality embryo rate on day 3, and secondary outcome was clinical pregnancy rate.
resultsBaseline characteristics of patients was similar in mild stimulation (122 cycles) and PPOS (47 cycles). No significant difference was found in the number of retrieved and mature oocytes and the fertilization and cleavage rates. Of interest, the rate of top-quality embryos was significantly higher in PPOS group (50.08% vs 33.29%, p = 0.015), with an increasing trend of viable embryo rate (73.55% vs 61.16%). A greater amount of gonadotropin was observed in PPOS group (2061.17 ± 1254.63 IU vs 1518.14 ± 547.25 IU, p < 0.05) in spite of comparable duration of stimulation. After FET cycle, no significant difference was found in the clinical pregnancy rates between mild stimulation (12.5%) and PPOS group (16.7%).
conclusionsHigher percentage of top-quality embryos on Day 3 and comparable clinical pregnancy rate was obtained in PPOS protocol, which could be considered as a feasible ovarian stimulation protocol in women aged above 40 years old.
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.