ReviewTherapeutic advances in reproductive health
Human growth hormone use in poor ovarian response - caution and opportunities.
Review in Therapeutic advances in reproductive health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Growth hormone improves the pregnancy outcomes in poor ovarian responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: an umbrella review.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Pooled it
- Comparative efficacy of different growth hormone supplementation protocols in improving clinical outcomes in women with poor ovarian response undergoing assisted reproductive therapy: a network meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Impact of Follicle Stimulating Hormone Receptor (FSHR) Polymorphism on the Efficiency of Co-Treatment with Growth Hormone in a Group of Infertile Women from Romania.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Treatment modalities for poor ovarian responders.Therapeutic advances in reproductive healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human growth hormone has found favour as a co-gonadotrophin in assisted reproduction particularly in the circumstances of a poor response to stimulation. Its use has been based on animal studies suggesting insulin-like growth factor-1 enhances granulosa and cumulus cell function and possibly oocyte quality. While there is limited ovarian cellular information in women, the use of human growth hormone is alleged to improve egg numbers, embryo quality, clinical pregnancies and live birth in women with a poor ovarian response. A number of cohort studies have claimed these benefits compared with prior nil treatment, but there are a limited number of quality randomised controlled studies. The few good randomised trials indicate an enhanced ovarian response in terms of oestradiol secretion and oocyte maturity with controversial improvement in ongoing pregnancy and live birth. Given the cost of the medication, the lack of convincing data on enhanced clinical outcomes and the theoretical possibility of side effects, we propose it is still too early to determine human growth hormone's true cost-benefit for widespread use. However, a number of emerging randomised trials may tilt the equation to a positive outlook in the future. Meanwhile, the hormone should only be used after full informed consent from the patient as to its effectiveness and efficacy.
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.