Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32215824›Full record

ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2020

Impact of progestin ovarian stimulation on newborn outcomes: a meta-analysis.

Irene Zolfaroli, Gemma Arribas Ferriol, Juan-José Hidalgo Mora, Antonio Cano

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

Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
6.2field-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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Progestogen-primed ovarian stimulation vs GnRH antagonists and/or agonists for women undergoing assisted reproduction: systematic review and meta-analysis.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Preconception ambient temperature and preterm birth: a time-series study in rural Henan, China.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2021
    Article
  18. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Irene ZolfaroliDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Clínico Universitario, Avenida Blasco Ibañez 17, 46010, Valencia, Spain. irenezolfaroli@gmail.com.
Gemma Arribas FerriolDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Clínico Universitario, Avenida Blasco Ibañez 17, 46010, Valencia, Spain.
Juan-José Hidalgo MoraDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Clínico Universitario, Avenida Blasco Ibañez 17, 46010, Valencia, Spain.
Antonio CanoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Clínico Universitario, Avenida Blasco Ibañez 17, 46010, Valencia, Spain.
Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valencia · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo compare progestin ovarian stimulation protocols with gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue (agonists and antagonists) protocols on newborn outcomes.

methodsThe PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and BioMed Central databases were searched for studies comparing progestin prime ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocols with gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues. Data were pooled by meta-analysis using a random effects model.

main outcome measuresPrimary endpoint was the risk of newborn congenital malformations.

resultsA total of 4 studies involving 9274 live-born infants were included. No important harm was observed with PPOS in terms of congenital malformations (OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.63-1.34; p = 0.65) (very low quality of evidence (QOE)) and low birth weight (OR 1.06; 95% CI 0.95-1.18; p = 0.29) (very low QOE) as compared with GnRH-a short protocols. In addition, a trend to a lower risk of preterm birth (OR 0.90; 95% CI 0.80-1.02; p = 0.10) (very low QOE) was found among patients treated with a PPOS protocol.

conclusionsPPOS protocols, compared with GnRH-a protocols, are associated with a similar congenital malformation risk profile. Therefore, PPOS might represent a safe and appealing treatment option for infertile patients.

Indexed as

Ovulation InductionEmbryo TransferFemaleFertility Agents, FemaleFertilization in VitroGonadotropin-Releasing HormoneHumansInfantInfant, NewbornLive BirthOvarian Hyperstimulation SyndromePregnancyPregnancy RatePremature BirthProgestinsSperm Injections, IntracytoplasmicFertility Agents, FemaleGonadotropin-Releasing HormoneProgestinsCongenital malformationsIn vitro fertilizationProgesteroneProgestin-primed ovarian stimulation

Identifiers

PMID32215824
PMCPMC7244671
OpenAlexW3014012207

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.