Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32054493›Full record

ArticleJournal of ovarian research2020

Outcomes of fertility preservation in women with endometriosis: comparison of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation versus antagonist protocols.

Emmanuelle Mathieu d'Argent, Clément Ferrier, Chrysoula Zacharopoulou, Naouel Ahdad-Yata, Anne-Sophie Boudy, Adèle Cantalloube, Rachel Levy, Jean-Marie Antoine, Emile Daraï, Sofiane Bendifallah

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

Article in Journal of ovarian research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Fertility preservation in women with endometriosis: How, when, and for whom?The Journal of international medical research · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  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

10 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Emmanuelle Mathieu d'ArgentDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Tenon University Hospital. Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP). Faculty of Medicine Pierre and Marie Curie. Sorbonne University, Paris, France.
Clément FerrierDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Tenon University Hospital. Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP). Faculty of Medicine Pierre and Marie Curie. Sorbonne University, Paris, France. clement.ferrier@aphp.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3461-6885
Chrysoula ZacharopoulouDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. Military hospital Bégin, Saint-Mandé, France.
Naouel Ahdad-YataDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Tenon University Hospital. Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP). Faculty of Medicine Pierre and Marie Curie. Sorbonne University, Paris, France.
Anne-Sophie BoudyDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Tenon University Hospital. Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP). Faculty of Medicine Pierre and Marie Curie. Sorbonne University, Paris, France.
Adèle CantalloubeDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Tenon University Hospital. Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP). Faculty of Medicine Pierre and Marie Curie. Sorbonne University, Paris, France.
Rachel LevyDepartment of Histology, Embryology, cytogenetic, CECOS. Hôpital Jean Verdier. Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Bondy, France.
Jean-Marie AntoineDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Tenon University Hospital. Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP). Faculty of Medicine Pierre and Marie Curie. Sorbonne University, Paris, France.
Emile DaraïDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Tenon University Hospital. Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP). Faculty of Medicine Pierre and Marie Curie. Sorbonne University, Paris, France.
Sofiane BendifallahDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Tenon University Hospital. Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP). Faculty of Medicine Pierre and Marie Curie. Sorbonne University, Paris, France.
Sorbonne Université · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPPOS protocols, initially described for FP in women with cancer, have many advantages compared to antagonist protocols. PPOS protocols were not evaluated for women with endometriosis. The objective of the study was to describe fertility preservation outcomes in women with endometriosis and to compare an antagonist protocol with a Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation (PPOS) protocol.

methodWe conducted a prospective cohort study associated with a cost-effectiveness analysis in a tertiary-care university hospital. The measured outcomes included the numbers of retrieved and vitrified oocytes, and direct medical costs. In the whole population, unique and multiple linear regressions analysis were performed to search for a correlation between individual characteristics and the number of retrieved oocyte.

resultsWe included 108 women with endometriosis who had a single stimulation cycle performed with either an antagonist or a PPOS protocol. Overall, 8.1 ± 6.6 oocytes were retrieved and 6.4 ± 5.6 oocytes vitrified per patient. In the multiple regression model, age (p = 0.001), prior ovarian surgery (p = 0.035), and anti-Mullerian hormone level (p = 0.001) were associated with the number of retrieved oocytes. Fifty-four women were stimulated with an antagonist protocol, and 54 with a PPOS protocol. A mean of 7.9 ± 7.4 oocytes were retrieved in the antagonist group and 8.2 ± 5.6 in the PPOS group (p = 0.78). A mean of 6.4 ± 6.4 oocytes were vitrified in the antagonist group and 6.4 ± 4.7 in the PPOS group (p = 1). In the cost-effectiveness analysis, the PPOS protocol was strongly dominant over the antagonist protocol.

conclusionFertility preservation procedures are feasible and effective for patients affected by endometriosis. Antagonist and PPOS protocols were associated with similar results but the medico-economic analysis was in favor of PPOS protocols.

Indexed as

AdultCohort StudiesEndometriosisFemaleFertility PreservationHumansOvulation InductionProgestinsProspective StudiesProgestinsAssisted-reproductive technologyCost-effectivenessCryopreservationEndometriosisInfertility

Identifiers

PMID32054493
PMCPMC7020543
OpenAlexW3008120231

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.