ArticleReproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.)2021
Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Agonist Versus Recombinant Human Chorionic Gonadotropin Triggering in Fertility Preservation Cycles.
Article in Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.), 2021. 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.
- ESHRE guideline: ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI: an update in 2025†.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2026Guideline
- Controlled ovarian stimulation for oocyte preservation in childhood cancer survivors who have undergone chemotherapy.Human reproduction open · 2025Article
- Oocyte retrieval in social fertility preservation: challenging traditional beliefs on gonadotropin dosing and follicular size.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2024Article
- Does dual trigger improve euploidy rate in normoresponder? A cross-sectional study.International journal of reproductive biomedicine · 2023Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this research is to study the efficacy of GnRH-a versus r-hCG triggering in patients who go through fertility preservation cycles. This retrospective cohort study was performed in a tertiary university-affiliated medical center. It includes 191 patients undergoing fertility preservation cycles between May 2013 and September 2018, in which ovulation was induced by either GnRH-a or r-hCG. Main outcome measures were number and rate of mature oocyte. Among treatment cycles with medical indication, GnRH agonist significantly increases the odds for high mature rate by 3.55 (1.30-9.66), while in treatment cycles with social indication, there is no significant effect of the triggering agent. An advantage for GnRH-a triggering was observed in medically indicated preservation cycles.
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.