ArticleBMJ open2021
Luteinising hormone-based protocol versus traditional flexible gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol in women with normal ovarian response: study protocol for a non-inferiority trial.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Luteinizing hormone-based modified GnRH antagonist protocol in normal responders undergoingFrontiers in endocrinology · 2022Trial
- Article
- The clinical application value of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist combined with low-dose HCG regimen in patients with ovarian hyper-stimulation based on clinical characteristics and laboratory indicators.American journal of translational research · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMany patients demonstrate an insufficient endogenous luteinising hormone (LH) concentration during ovarian stimulation. With traditional fixed or flexible gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocols, antagonist administration may further reduce LH activity. Previously, we proved that LH can be used as an indicator for the timing and dosage of antagonist. Patients with a persistently low LH concentration during ovarian stimulation may not require antagonists, whereas antagonist administration can affect reproductive outcomes. To further explore this hypothesis, we designed a randomised clinical trial to compare the LH-based flexible GnRH antagonist protocol with traditional flexible GnRH antagonist protocol in women with normal ovarian response. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study was a multicentre, parallel, prospective, randomised, non-inferiority study. The primary efficacy endpoint was cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate per cycle. The study aimed to prove the non-inferiority of cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate per cycle with an LH-based flexible GnRH antagonist protocol versus traditional flexible GnRH antagonist protocol. Secondary endpoints were the high-quality embryo rate, clinical pregnancy rate and cancellation rate. Differences in cost-effectiveness and adverse events were evaluated. The cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate per cycle in women with normal ovarian response was 70%. Considering that a non-inferiority threshold should retain 80% of the clinical effect of a control treatment, a minimal clinical difference of 14% (one-sided: α, 2.5%; β, 20%) and a total of 338 patients were needed. Anticipating a 10% drop-out rate, the total number of patients required was 372. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has been approved by the Institutional Ethical Committee of Beijing Chao-Yang hospital. All participants in the trial will provide written informed consent. The study will be conducted according to the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and its amendments. Results of this study will be disseminated in peer-reviewed scientific journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR1800018077.
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.