ArticleReproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E2020
The best execution of the DuoStim strategy (double stimulation in the follicular and luteal phase of the same ovarian cycle) in patients who are poor ovarian responders.
Article in Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The impact of Duostim protocol on pregnancy outcomes in infertile patients: A meta-analysis comparing single and double conventional stimulation cycles.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2024Pooled it
- Double stimulation in the same menstrual cycle (DuoStim): a comparative evaluation of follicular and luteal phase response.Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association · 2026Article
- "Extended ovarian stimulation": a prolonged ovarian exposure to gonadotrophins leads to an increase in the oocyte yield-evidence from the DuoStim experience.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Review
- Unlocking new horizons in egg donation: clinical and logistical benefits of double ovarian stimulation.F&S reports · 2026Article
- Surfing follicular waves in ovarian stimulation: is there a role for LH in DuoStim protocols? A narrative review and SWOT analysis.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2025Review
- Adjusting key performance indicators in ART laboratories according to controlled ovarian stimulation protocol.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Article
- 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
- ComparisonInternational journal of fertility & sterility · 2024Article
- Investigating Ovulation Induction Outcomes in Patients with Decreased Ovarian Reserve Treated with Double Stimulation during The Follicular and Luteal Phases Compared to The Conventional Antagonist Cycle: A Randomized Clinical Trial.International journal of fertility & sterility · 2024Article
- Conventional follicular-phase ovarian stimulation vs. luteal-phase stimulation in suboptimal responders: a randomized controlled trial.F&S reports · 2023Article
- Oocyte Quality and Blastocyst Formation Rate with Dual Stimulation in Patients Belonging to POSEIDON Groups 3 and 4: A Retrospective Comparative Study.Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India · 2023Article
- Influence of the starting day of luteal phase stimulation on double stimulation cycles.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Observational
- A Feasible Option before Cycle Cancellation for Poor Responders; STOP-START Protocol.International journal of fertility & sterility · 2021Article
- Luteal Phase Stimulation in the Same Cycle Is an Effective Strategy to Rescue POSEIDON Poor Responders with No Embryos after the First Follicular Stimulation.Journal of human reproductive sciencesArticle
- Double or dual stimulation in poor ovarian responders: where do we stand?Therapeutic advances in reproductive healthReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatients found to be poor ovarian responders (POR) are a challenging patient population for any assisted reproduction technology. Despite attempts at various controlled ovarian stimulation schemes, reproductive outcomes in this patient population have not improved. In recent years, the DuoStim protocol (both follicular and luteal phase stimulation during the same menstrual cycle) has shown a potential for use in patients with POR.
methodsThis retrospective study reviewed the medical records of 304 women who were diagnosed as POR and underwent the DuoStim protocol. We compared follicular phase stimulation (FPS) data and luteal phase stimulation (LPS) data of the same patients. We also compared the effects of different trigger drugs including urine human chorionic gonadotropin (uHCG; 10,000 IU), recombinant human chorionic gonadotropin (rHCG; 250 μg), and gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a; 0.2 mg) at the FPS and LPS stages.
resultsPOR undergoing the DuoStim protocol resulted in a significantly higher number of oocytes retrieved, normal fertilised oocytes, cleaved embryos, cryopreserved embryos, and good quality embryos at the LPS stage than at the FPS stage. Trigger drugs at the FPS stage did not affect the FPS stage data. Regardless of the stage, rHCG and GnRH-a yielded significantly more cryopreserved embryos and good quality embryos than uHCG.
conclusionThe use of GnRH-a or rHCG as the trigger drug may be better than uHCG in both the FPS and LPS stages for POR undergoing the DuoStim protocol. This will increase the number of good quality embryos at the LPS stage. We found that the LPS stage results in more oocytes (and therefore more embryos) than the FPS stage.
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.