Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32671734›Full record

ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2020

Controlled ovarian stimulation and progesterone supplementation affect vaginal and endometrial microbiota in IVF cycles: a pilot study.

Andrea Carosso, Alberto Revelli, Gianluca Gennarelli, Stefano Canosa, Stefano Cosma, Fulvio Borella, Annalisa Tancredi, Carlotta Paschero, Lara Boatti, Elisa Zanotto and 5 more

Abstract read
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 51 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. A randomised control trial on oral dydrogesteroneJournal of medicine and life · 2023
    Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Endometrial Microbiome and Reproductive Receptivity: Diverse Perspectives.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

15 authors.

Andrea CarossoObstetrics and Gynecology 1U, Physiopathology of Reproduction and IVF Unit, Department of Surgical Sciences, Sant Anna Hospital, University of Torino, Via Ventimiglia 1, 10126, Turin, Italy. andrea88.carosso@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7734-4499
Alberto RevelliObstetrics and Gynecology 1U, Physiopathology of Reproduction and IVF Unit, Department of Surgical Sciences, Sant Anna Hospital, University of Torino, Via Ventimiglia 1, 10126, Turin, Italy.
Gianluca GennarelliObstetrics and Gynecology 1U, Physiopathology of Reproduction and IVF Unit, Department of Surgical Sciences, Sant Anna Hospital, University of Torino, Via Ventimiglia 1, 10126, Turin, Italy.
Stefano CanosaObstetrics and Gynecology 1U, Physiopathology of Reproduction and IVF Unit, Department of Surgical Sciences, Sant Anna Hospital, University of Torino, Via Ventimiglia 1, 10126, Turin, Italy.
Stefano CosmaObstetrics and Gynecology 1U, Physiopathology of Reproduction and IVF Unit, Department of Surgical Sciences, Sant Anna Hospital, University of Torino, Via Ventimiglia 1, 10126, Turin, Italy.
Fulvio BorellaObstetrics and Gynecology 1U, Physiopathology of Reproduction and IVF Unit, Department of Surgical Sciences, Sant Anna Hospital, University of Torino, Via Ventimiglia 1, 10126, Turin, Italy.
Annalisa TancrediObstetrics and Gynecology 1U, Physiopathology of Reproduction and IVF Unit, Department of Surgical Sciences, Sant Anna Hospital, University of Torino, Via Ventimiglia 1, 10126, Turin, Italy.
Carlotta PascheroObstetrics and Gynecology 1U, Physiopathology of Reproduction and IVF Unit, Department of Surgical Sciences, Sant Anna Hospital, University of Torino, Via Ventimiglia 1, 10126, Turin, Italy.
Lara BoattiArrow Diagnostics S.r.l., Via Francesco Rolla 26, 16152, Genoa, Italy.
Elisa ZanottoVirology, Public Health and Pediatrics Department, University of Torino, Turin, Italy.
Francesca SidotiVirology, Public Health and Pediatrics Department, University of Torino, Turin, Italy.
Paolo BottinoVirology, Public Health and Pediatrics Department, University of Torino, Turin, Italy.
Cristina CostaVirology, Public Health and Pediatrics Department, University of Torino, Turin, Italy.
Rossana CavalloVirology, Public Health and Pediatrics Department, University of Torino, Turin, Italy.
Chiara BenedettoObstetrics and Gynecology 1U, Physiopathology of Reproduction and IVF Unit, Department of Surgical Sciences, Sant Anna Hospital, University of Torino, Via Ventimiglia 1, 10126, Turin, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDoes controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) and progesterone (P) luteal supplementation modify the vaginal and endometrial microbiota of women undergoing in vitro fertilization?

methodsFifteen women underwent microbiota analysis at two time points: during a mock transfer performed in the luteal phase of the cycle preceding COS, and at the time of fresh embryo transfer (ET). A vaginal swab and the distal extremity of the ET catheter tip were analyzed using next-generation 16SrRNA gene sequencing. Heterogeneity of the bacterial microbiota was assessed according to both the Bray-Curtis similarity index and the Shannon diversity index.

resultsLactobacillus was the most prevalent genus in the vaginal samples, although its relative proportion was reduced by COS plus P supplementation (71.5 ± 40.6% vs. 61.1 ± 44.2%). In the vagina, an increase in pathogenic species was observed, involving Prevotella (3.5 ± 8.9% vs. 12.0 ± 19.4%), and Escherichia coli-Shigella spp. (1.4 ± 5.6% vs. 2.0 ± 7.8%). In the endometrium, the proportion of Lactobacilli slightly decreased (27.4 ± 34.5% vs. 25.0 ± 29.9%); differently, both Prevotella and Atopobium increased (3.4 ± 9.5% vs. 4.7 ± 7.4% and 0.7 ± 1.5% vs. 5.8 ± 12.0%). In both sites, biodiversity was greater after COS (p < 0.05), particularly in the endometrial microbiota, as confirmed by Bray-Curtis analysis of the phylogenetic distance among bacteria genera. Bray-Curtis analysis confirmed significant differences also for the paired endometrium-vagina samples at each time point.

conclusionsOur findings suggest that COS and P supplementation significantly change the composition of vaginal and endometrial microbiota. The greater instability could affect both endometrial receptivity and placentation. If our findings are confirmed, they may provide a further reason to encourage the freeze-all strategy.

Indexed as

Fertilization in VitroAdultEmbryo TransferEndometriumFemaleHumansMicrobiotaOvulation InductionPhylogenyPregnancyProgesteroneRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSperm Injections, IntracytoplasmicVaginaProgesteroneRNA, Ribosomal, 16S16S ribosomal subunitControlled ovarian stimulationDysbiosisEmbryo implantationEndometriumFreeze allInfertilityIVF/IVF-ICSIMicrobiotaReproductive tract bacteriaVagina

Identifiers

PMID32671734
PMCPMC7492325

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.