SynthesisJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2021
ART outcomes following ovarian stimulation in the luteal phase:a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ovarian responsiveness during random-start stimulation and DuoStim in women: comparative insights from domestic animal models.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
- Luteal-phase stimulation does not compromise embryo euploidy or live birth outcomes compared to follicular-phase stimulation.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Smaller follicle diameter improves outcomes in natural LPOS: a retrospective cohort study.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Article
- Exploring new frontiers in oncofertility preservation: a case of ovarian stimulation during pregnancy.Journal of ovarian research · 2025Article
- Unlocking Success: The Optimal Gonadotrophin Starting Point for Luteal-Phase Stimulation in IVF Patients with Normal Responses.International journal of women's health · 2025Article
- Melatonin levels and embryo quality in IVF patients with diminished ovarian reserve: a comparative study.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2024Article
- Benefit from luteal phase progestin primed ovarian stimulation with clomiphene citrate supplementation in young women with diminished ovarian reserve: a retrospective study.Zhejiang da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Zhejiang University. Medical sciences · 2024Article
- Effect of BMI on cumulative live birth rates in patients that completed IVF treatment: a retrospective cohort study of 16,126 patients.Endocrine connections · 2024Article
- Clinical Application of Double Ovulation Stimulation in Patients with Diminished Ovarian Reserve and Asynchronous Follicular Development Undergoing Assisted Reproduction Technology.Current medical science · 2023Article
- Article
- Pregnancy Outcomes in Double Stimulation versus Two Consecutive Mild Stimulations for IVF in Poor Ovarian Responders.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Addition of intramuscular to vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support in fresh embryo transfer cycles: A cross-sectional study.International journal of reproductive biomedicine · 2022Article
- The earlier the initiation of gonadotropin in poor responders in luteal phase stimulation protocols, the better.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the impact of luteal phase ovarian stimulation (LPS) on the outcomes of assisted reproductive technology (ART) for infertile couples and patients desiring non-urgent egg cryopreservation.
methodsWe included all studies reported patients who received LPS and that used follicular phase ovarian stimulation (FPS) as a comparison group until January 2021. Prior meta-analysis regarding the outcomes of LPS in double stimulation and fertility preservation have already been published, so these studies were excluded. Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions was used to assess the study quality. The study was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews database (CRD42020183946).
resultsTwelve studies with a total of 4433 patients were included. The regimen employed can be categorized into two groups, but there is currently no evidence to support one over the other. After we excluded the largest study, the clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate were similar after FPS and LPS. There were significantly more stimulation days and total gonadotropins used in the LPS group. After subgroup analysis, we found that poor responders received significantly more cumulus oocyte complexes (+0.64) in the LPS group.
conclusionCurrent evidence indicates that patients in the LPS group could achieve pregnancy outcomes non-inferior to those in the FPS group. Because of current debate over freeze-all policy and the limited data about live birth rate, the universal use of LPS is considered controversial. In the future, more well-designed studies are necessary to investigate the indications for LPS and its cost-effectiveness.
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.