Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34370944›Full record

ArticleClinical and experimental reproductive medicine2021

Subcutaneous progesterone versus vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization: A retrospective analysis from daily clinical practice.

Marcel Schütt, The Duy Nguyen, Martha Kalff-Suske, Uwe Wagner, Georg Macharey, Volker Ziller

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and experimental reproductive medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Marcel SchüttDepartment of Gynecological Endocrinology, Reproductive Medicine and Osteoporosis, University Hospital Giessen and Marburg, Philipps University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
The Duy NguyenDepartment of Gynecological Endocrinology, Reproductive Medicine and Osteoporosis, University Hospital Giessen and Marburg, Philipps University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Martha Kalff-SuskeDepartment of Gynecological Endocrinology, Reproductive Medicine and Osteoporosis, University Hospital Giessen and Marburg, Philipps University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Uwe WagnerDepartment of Gynecological Endocrinology, Reproductive Medicine and Osteoporosis, University Hospital Giessen and Marburg, Philipps University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Georg MachareyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Volker ZillerDepartment of Gynecological Endocrinology, Reproductive Medicine and Osteoporosis, University Hospital Giessen and Marburg, Philipps University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Universitätsklinikum Gießen und Marburg · DEPhilipps University of Marburg · DEHelsinki University Hospital · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveProgesterone application for luteal phase support is a well-established concept in in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. Water-soluble subcutaneous progesterone injections have shown pregnancy rates equivalent to those observed in patients receiving vaginal administration in randomized controlled trials. Our study aimed to investigate whether the results from those pivotal trials could be reproduced in daily clinical practice in an unselected patient population.

methodsIn this retrospective cohort study in non-standardized daily clinical practice, we compared 273 IVF cycles from 195 women undergoing IVF at our center for luteal phase support with vaginal administration of 200 mg of micronized progesterone three times daily or subcutaneous injection of 25 mg of progesterone per day.

resultsVarious patient characteristics including age, weight, height, number of oocytes, and body mass index were similar between both groups. We observed no significant differences in the clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) per treatment cycle between the subcutaneous (39.9%) and vaginal group (36.5%) (p=0.630). Covariate analysis showed significant correlations of the number of transferred embryos and the total dosage of stimulation medication with the CPR. However, after adjustment of the CPR for these covariates using a regression model, no significant difference was observed between the two groups (odds ratio, 0.956; 95% confidence interval, 0.152-1.786; p=0.888).

conclusionIn agreement with randomized controlled trials in study populations with strict selection criteria, our study determined that subcutaneous progesterone was equally effective as vaginally applied progesterone in daily clinical practice in an unselected patient population.

Indexed as

Fertilization in vitroHumanIntravaginal administrationLuteal phasePregnancy rateProgesteroneReproductionRetrospective studiesSubcutaneous injections

Identifiers

PMID34370944
PMCPMC8421659
OpenAlexW3191524815

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.