Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35574014›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2022

Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation Protocol for Patients With Endometrioma.

Ai-Min Yang, Teng-Fei Feng, Yan Han, Zhi-Ming Zhao, Wei Wang, Yi-Zhuo Wang, Xiao-Qi Zuo, Xiuhua Xu, Bao-Jun Shi, Lipeng Li and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ai-Min YangHebei Key Laboratory of Infertility and Genetics, Hebei Clinical Research Center for Birth Defects, Department of Reproductive Medicine, Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China.
Teng-Fei FengHebei Key Laboratory of Infertility and Genetics, Hebei Clinical Research Center for Birth Defects, Department of Reproductive Medicine, Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China.
Yan HanHebei Key Laboratory of Infertility and Genetics, Hebei Clinical Research Center for Birth Defects, Department of Reproductive Medicine, Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China.
Zhi-Ming ZhaoHebei Key Laboratory of Infertility and Genetics, Hebei Clinical Research Center for Birth Defects, Department of Reproductive Medicine, Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China.
Wei WangHebei Key Laboratory of Infertility and Genetics, Hebei Clinical Research Center for Birth Defects, Department of Reproductive Medicine, Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China.
Yi-Zhuo WangHebei Key Laboratory of Infertility and Genetics, Hebei Clinical Research Center for Birth Defects, Department of Reproductive Medicine, Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China.
Xiao-Qi ZuoHebei Key Laboratory of Infertility and Genetics, Hebei Clinical Research Center for Birth Defects, Department of Reproductive Medicine, Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China.
Xiuhua XuHebei Key Laboratory of Infertility and Genetics, Hebei Clinical Research Center for Birth Defects, Department of Reproductive Medicine, Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China.
Bao-Jun ShiHebei Key Laboratory of Infertility and Genetics, Hebei Clinical Research Center for Birth Defects, Department of Pediatric Surgery, Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China.
Lipeng LiHebei Key Laboratory of Infertility and Genetics, Hebei Clinical Research Center for Birth Defects, Department of Reproductive Medicine, Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China.
Gui-Min HaoHebei Key Laboratory of Infertility and Genetics, Hebei Clinical Research Center for Birth Defects, Department of Reproductive Medicine, Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China.
Na CuiHebei Key Laboratory of Infertility and Genetics, Hebei Clinical Research Center for Birth Defects, Department of Reproductive Medicine, Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China.
Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University · CNHebei Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the pregnancy outcomes of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol for patients with endometrioma underwent Design: Observational retrospective cohort study. Setting: University affiliated reproductive center. Study Participants: 605 infertile patients with endometrioma underwent IVF/ICSI-ET from January 2016 to March 2021 were included in this study. Methods: Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine the independent effect of controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) protocols on reproductive outcomes of first embryo transfer (ET) cycles. The live birth was primary outcome, the implantation rate, biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy were secondary outcomes. Results: Compared to PPOS protocol, the probability of implantation showed no significant difference with ultra-long gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) protocol and gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRHant) protocol (OR 1.7, 95% CI 0.9-3.1, OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.7-2.1, respectively). The PPOS protocol was correlated with a significantly lower biochemical pregnancy and clinical pregnancy than ultra-long GnRHa protocol in the multivariable logistic regression analysis (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.1-4.9, OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.1-5.3, respectively). However, there was no significant difference in terms of biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy between PPOS and GnRHant protocol (OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.7-2.7, OR 1.3, 95% CI 0.7-2.4, OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.6-2.3, respectively). In addition, compared to PPOS protocol, ultra-long GnRHa protocol and GnRHant protocol demonstrated no statistical difference in ongoing pregnancy (OR 2.0, 95% CI 0.9-4.5, OR 2.1, 95% CI 0.6-2.3, respectively). Notably, the ultra-long GnRHa protocol was associated with a significant higher probability of live birth than PPOS protocol both in crude analysis and multivariable logistic regression analysis (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.3-5.1, OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.1-5.7, respectively). Nevertheless, no statistical difference was found in live birth between PPOS and GnRHant protocol either in crude analysis and multivariable logistic regression analysis (OR1.2, 95% CI 0.6-2.3, OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.6-2.5, respectively). Conclusions: Based on the reproductive outcomes of the first ET cycles in patients with endometrioma, PPOS protocol may associated with inferior reproductive outcomes in terms of biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy and live birth than ultra-long GnRHa protocol. However, there was no significant difference in implantation rate, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy and live birth between PPOS and GnRHant protocol.

Indexed as

EndometriosisProgestinsFemaleFertilization in VitroHormone AntagonistsHumansObservational Studies as TopicOvulation InductionPregnancyRetrospective StudiesHormone AntagonistsProgestinsendometriomain vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-EF)live birthprogestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS)ultra-long GnRH agonist protocol

Identifiers

PMID35574014
PMCPMC9096226
OpenAlexW4225006821

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.