ArticleJournal of reproduction & infertility
Embryo Banking with Mild Ovarian Stimulation for IVF: An Alternative Strategy for Poor Prognosis Patients.
Article in Journal of reproduction & infertility. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing infertility treatment for ovarian endometrioma: is surgical intervention preferable before or after in-vitro fertilization programs?Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Article
- The impact of the embryo banking on the cumulative live birth rate in women with poor ovarian response according to the Bologna criteria.Reproductive medicine and biologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundManagement of Poor Ovarian Reserve (POR) in in vitro fertilization remains a difficult challenge. The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to compare the effectiveness of embryo banking strategy over a cohort of several mild stimulation cycles (Embryo Banking Strategy for Poor Prognosis/Embargo) to conventional full-dose antagonist protocol for IVF.
methodsSubjects identified as having poor ovarian response (POR) based on the Bologna criteria were recruited. In total, there were 113 subjects included in the analysis. Fifty-three subjects underwent embryo banking procedure (Embargo) protocol, and sixty subjects underwent the conventional full-dose antagonist protocol for IVF. The Chi-square test was used to compare the clinical pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate as well as live birth rate, while the Mann-Whitney U test was utilized to analyze the cost per clinical pregnancy between the two groups. A p<0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsThe two studied groups showed similar outcomes regarding clinical pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, as well as live birth rate (p=0.966, p=0.310, and p= 0.469, respectively). Cost analysis of subjects who underwent mild ovarian stimulation followed by Embargo revealed the high cost of the protocol compared to conventional full-dose antagonist protocol ($10.507±6.181
conclusionThe clinical outcomes of both protocols were comparable. Embargo procedure was not efficient in improving the overall clinical outcomes in patients who were expected poor ovarian responders as the protocol costed more comparing with conventional full-dose antagonist protocol. A larger prospective randomized control trial is needed to evaluate this finding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32685414PMC7362096What 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.