ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2022
Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation Protocol for Patients With Endometrioma.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of progesterone protocol versus gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol in terms of preventing premature LH surge and assisted reproductive technology outcome in infertile women: a randomized controlled trial.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Trial
- Development and validation of a clinical nomogram for predicting cumulative live birth rate in ovarian endometrioma patients undergoing ethanol sclerotherapy andFrontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Analysis of cumulative live birth rate outcomes of four ovarian stimulation protocols in Poseidon groups 3/4 patients with adenomyosis.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Article
- The application of progesterone-primed ovarian stimulation protocol in patients with ovarian endometriosis combined with diminished ovarian reserve.BMC women's health · 2025Article
- Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol in patients undergoing assisted reproductive technology.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2025Review
- Nomogram-based model to predict prognosis in anisometropic amblyopia.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Factors influencing oocyte yield and embryo quality in donor IVF cycles: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
- A comparative analysis of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation versus GnRH antagonists protocols pertaining to stimulation parameters and embryological outcomes in patients with endometrioma.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
- The PPOS protocol mitigates the detrimental effects of high BMI on embryo and clinical pregnancy outcomes.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.