ArticleJBRA assisted reproduction2014
Ovarian stimulation with GnRH analogues.
Article in JBRA assisted reproduction, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAnalysis and compare data between two induction protocols (long agonist and flexible antagonist) in patients submitted an assisted reproduction technique in Porto Alegre.
methodsCross-sectional study comparing the intermediate results with the use of two different ovarian stimulation protocols with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist versus antagonist to assisted reproductive techniques. The statistical analysis of the retrieved data (age, body mass index, number of oocytes recovered, number of fertilized oocytes, number of oocytes cleaved, total dose of FSH used and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome) was performed by Student's t-test for parametric data and analysis of covariance for the dependent variables.
resultsA total of 50 patients, 25 in each group, met the criteria for inclusion in the study between January and March in the year 2010. There was statistically significant difference only in the middle ages between the groups (P = 0.031). There was no statistical difference for the remaining data analyzed (body mass index, number of oocytes recovered, number of fertilized oocytes, number of oocytes cleaved and dose of FSH utilized). There were no cases of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.
conclusionBoth protocols are equal in terms of results. The agonist has advantages about scheduling of the procedure, but it takes too long to start the stimulation and have possibility to start medication in a pregnant patient. Added to this, we have the possibility of getting the ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome as complication. In the antagonist group, is clear the ease-of-use of the medication and the fastest start of stimulation.
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.