ArticleObstetrics & gynecology science2021
Does the timing of cabergoline administration impact rates of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome?
Article in Obstetrics & gynecology science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Women with PCOS who undergo IVF: a comprehensive review of therapeutic strategies for successful outcomes.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2023Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDoes the timing of cabergoline administration impact the rate of mild/moderate ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in women with a GnRH agonist trigger?
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of 285 in-vitro fertilization patients at risk of OHSS who received a GnRH agonist trigger from 2011 to 2019 at McGill University Health Centre. Group 1 (Trig, n=101) began taking cabergoline 0.5 mg orally for 7 days at the time of GnRH agonist trigger, while Group 2 (Retriev, n=184) started taking cabergoline on the day of oocyte retrieval. The rates of OHSS were then compared between the groups using analysis of variance and chi-square analysis, where appropriate.
resultsThe baseline demographic characteristics of the two groups were similar. Trig appeared to be at a slightly higher risk of OHSS based on a significantly higher antral follicle count (20.2±4.2 vs. 19.0±4.3; P=0.02), higher number of stimulated follicles >10 mm at trigger (25.7±7.0 vs. 22.8±8.3, P=0.003), and higher peak serum E2 level (17,325±2,542 vs. 14,822±3,098; P=0.0001). The Trig group had lower rates of mild and moderate OHSS (24% vs. 36%; P=0.045). Neither group had any patients who developed severe OHSS. Trig had fewer patients presenting with pelvic free fluid (13% vs. 23%; P=0.03), lower hematocrit (37.8±4.8% vs. 40.5±4.2%; P=0.0001), higher albumin concentrations (30.4±2.7 vs. 29.5±2.0; P=0.01), and lower potassium concentrations (3.9±0.5 vs. 4.2±0.7; P=0.0002).
conclusionCabergoline at the time of trigger as compared to the time of collection should be investigated to assess its role in reducing the rates of mild/moderate OHSS.
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.