ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Effect of rLH Supplementation during Controlled Ovarian Stimulation for IVF: Evidence from a Retrospective Analysis of 1470 Poor/Suboptimal/Normal Responders Receiving Either rFSH plus rLH or rFSH Alone.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recombinant LH supplementation during ovarian stimulation modulates early embryo morphokinetics without affecting IVF outcomes in normal responders: a retrospective time-lapse study.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Article
- Impact of adding r-LH to r-FSH during ovarian stimulation on reproductive outcomes of women with polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome undergoingFrontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Factors influencing oocyte yield and embryo quality in donor IVF cycles: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
- Patients with low prognosis in ART: a Delphi consensus to identify potential clinical implications and measure the impact of POSEIDON criteria.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2024Article
- Impact of stimulation with luteinizing hormone activity on IVF outcomes in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome.Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association · 2024Article
- FSH/LH co-stimulation in Advanced Maternal Age (AMA) and hypo-responder patients - Arabian gulf delphi consensus group.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024Article
- Assisted Reproductive Technology Outcomes in Women with Normal Ovarian Response Receiving Recombinant Luteinizing Hormone/Human Menopausal Gonadotropin: An Observational Study.International journal of women's health · 2024Article
- Analysis of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation protocols in women over 35 years old with poor ovarian response: a real-world study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Article
- Article
- Effect of recombinant LH supplementation timing on clinical pregnancy outcome in long-acting GnRHa downregulated cycles.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2022Article
- Recombinant LH supplementation improves cumulative live birth rates in the GnRH antagonist protocol: a multicenter retrospective study using a propensity score-matching analysis.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2022Article
- Comparison of the Administration of 150 or 75Journal of reproduction & infertilityArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We retrospectively studied a real-life population of 1470 women undergoing IVF, with poor/suboptimal/normal ovarian responsiveness to controlled ovarian stimulation (COS), comparing the cumulative live birth rate (cLBR) when COS was performed using rFSH alone or rFSH + rLH in a 2:1 ratio. Overall, we observed significantly higher cLBR in the rFSH alone group than in the rFSH + rLH group (29.3% vs. 22.2%, p < 0.01). However, considering only suboptimal/poor responders (n = 309), we observed comparable cLBR (15.6% vs. 15.2%, p = 0.95) despite the fact that patients receiving rFSH + rLH had significantly higher ages and worse ovarian reserve markers. The equivalent effectiveness of rFSH + rLH and rFSH alone was further confirmed after stratification according to the number of oocytes retrieved: despite basal characteristics were still in favor of rFSH alone group, the cLBR always resulted comparable. Even subdividing patients according to the POSEIDON classification, irrespective of differences in the baseline clinical characteristics in favor of FSH alone group, the cLBR resulted comparable in all subgroups. Despite the retrospective, real-life analysis, our data suggest that rLH supplementation in COS may represent a reasonable option for patients with predictable or unexpected poor/suboptimal ovarian responsiveness to FSH, those matching the Bologna criteria for poor responsiveness, and those included in the POSEIDON classification.
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.