Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34723055›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of reproductive biomedicine2021

Luteal-phase support in assisted reproductive technology: An ongoing challenge.

Saeideh Dashti, Maryam Eftekhar

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of reproductive biomedicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Comparison of Luteal Support Protocols in Frozen IVF/ICSI Cycles: A Network Meta-Analysis.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

2 authors.

Saeideh DashtiResearch and Clinical Center for Infertility, Yazd Reproductive Sciences Institute, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran.
Maryam EftekharResearch and Clinical Center for Infertility, Yazd Reproductive Sciences Institute, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5068-0217

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It has been shown that in controlled ovarian hyper stimulation cycles, defective luteal phase is common. There are many protocols for improving pregnancy outcomes in women undergoing fresh and frozen in vitro fertilization cycles. These approaches include progesterone supplements, human chorionic gonadotropin, estradiol, gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist, and recombinant luteinizing hormone. The main challenge is luteal-phase support (LPS) in cycles with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist triggering. There is still controversy about the optimal component and time for starting LPS in assisted reproductive technology cycles. This review aims to summarize the various protocols suggested for LPS in in vitro fertilization cycles.

Indexed as

GnRH agonistHCGIVFLuteal-phase supportProgesteroneRecombinant LH.

Identifiers

PMID34723055
PMCPMC8548747

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.