ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2021
Comparison of Dydrogesterone and Medroxyprogesterone in the Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation Protocol for Patients With Poor Ovarian Response.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07348757 (Comparison of rFSH Alone Versus rFSH+rLH in Dydrogesterone-Based Progestin Protocol Cycles), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 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.
Comparison of rFSH Alone Versus rFSH+rLH in Dydrogesterone-Based Progestin Protocol Cycles
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Luteinizing hormone dynamics during progestin-primed ovarian stimulation do not predict follicular output in women with normo-ovarian reserve.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Review
- Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol in patients undergoing assisted reproductive technology.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2025Review
- Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation with letrozole using different doses of medroxyprogesterone acetate per day: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024Article
- Effect of medroxyprogesterone acetate dose in progestin-primed ovarian stimulation on pregnancy outcomes in poor ovarian response patients with different body mass index levels.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024Article
- Cumulative live birth rate in mild versus conventional stimulation in progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocols for individuals with low prognosis.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Article
- Comparison of the neonatal outcomes of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation and flexible GnRH antagonist protocols: a propensity score-matched cohort study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Article
- The comparison between fixed versus degressive doses of medroxyprogesterone acetate combined with letrozole in patients of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol: a propensity score-matched study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Article
- Effect of Coenzyme Q10 and transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation in assisted reproductive technology: a retrospective controlled study.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2022Article
- Preventing Growth Stagnation and Premature LH Surge Are the Keys to Obtaining a Viable Embryo in Monofollicular IVF Cycles: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Outcomes and affecting factors for ICSI and microTESE treatments in nonobstructive azoospermia patients with different etiologies: A retrospective analysis.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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the clinical outcomes of dydrogesterone (DYG) and medroxyprogesterone (MPA) in the progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol for patients with poor ovarian response (POR). Patients and Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study. Women with POR who underwent IVF/ICSI at the Reproductive Center of Third Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University between January 2020 and January 2021 were included. The primary outcome measure of our study was the number of oocytes retrieved. The secondary outcome measures in the present study were the number of 2PN, number of available embryos, oocyte retrieval rate, fertilization rate, viable embryo rate per oocyte retrieved, cancellation rate and pregnancy outcomes of the first embryo transfer cycle, including the biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy and miscarriage rates. Results: In total, 118 women underwent hMG +DYG protocols, and 692 women who underwent hMG +MPA met the Bologna criteria for POR. After baseline characteristics were balanced using the PSM model, 118 hMG +DYG protocols were matched to 118 hMG +MPA protocols, and the baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. The numbers of oocytes retrieved, 2PN, and available embryos and the oocyte retrieval rate, fertilization rate, viable embryo rate per oocyte retrieved and cancellation rate of the hMG+DYG and hMG+MPA protocols were comparable. Altogether, 66 women in the hMG+DYG group and 87 women in the hMG+MPA group underwent first embryo transfers. In the hMG+DYG group, 81.8% (54/66) of the patients underwent cleavage embryo transfers; similarly, 79.3% (69/87) of patients in the hMG+MPA group had cleavage embryo transfers (P=0.70).The biochemical pregnancy rate of the hMG+DYG group was 42.4%, and this was comparable to the rate in the hMG+DYG group, at 34.5% (P=0.32). The clinical pregnancy rates were similar between the two groups (36.4% Conclusion: For women with POR, the clinical outcome of the hMG + DYG group was similar to that of the hMG + MPA group, indicating that both combinations can be useful options for PPOS protocols.
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.