Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35937797›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2022

An Individualized Recommendation for Controlled Ovary Stimulation Protocol in Women Who Received the GnRH Agonist Long-Acting Protocol or the GnRH Antagonist Protocol: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Ming-Xing Chen, Xiang-Qian Meng, Zhao-Hui Zhong, Xiao-Jun Tang, Tian Li, Qian Feng, Enoch Appiah Adu-Gyamfi, Yan Jia, Xing-Yu Lv, Li-Hong Geng and 4 more

Abstract 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 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Clinical data-based modeling of IVF live birth outcome and its application.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

14 authors.

Ming-Xing ChenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Women and Children's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Xiang-Qian MengReproductive Medical Center, Chengdu Xinan Gynecological Hospital, Chengdu, China.
Zhao-Hui ZhongDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Women and Children's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Xiao-Jun TangDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health and Management, Research Center for Medicine and Social Development, Innovation Center for Social Risk Governance in Health, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Tian LiThe Department of Reproductive Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Qian FengDepartment of Gynecology, Chongqing Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chongqing, China.
Enoch Appiah Adu-GyamfiJoint International Research Laboratory of Reproduction and Development of the Ministry of Education of China, School of Public Health, Chongqing, China.
Yan JiaInfertility and Infertility Center, Chengdu Jinjiang Hospital for Women's and Children's Health, Chengdu, China.
Xing-Yu LvReproductive Medical Center, Chengdu Xinan Gynecological Hospital, Chengdu, China.
Li-Hong GengInfertility and Infertility Center, Chengdu Jinjiang Hospital for Women's and Children's Health, Chengdu, China.
Lin ZhuReproductive Medical Center, Southwest Hospital, Army Medical University, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Wei HeReproductive Medical Center, Southwest Hospital, Army Medical University, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Qi WanReproductive Medical Center, Chengdu Xinan Gynecological Hospital, Chengdu, China.
Yu-Bin DingDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Women and Children's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The GnRH agonist long-acting protocol and GnRH antagonist protocol are widely used in ovarian stimulation. Which protocol eliciting higher live birth rate for IVF/ICSI patients with different ages, different ovarian reserves and different body mass index (BMI) has not been studied. However, among these protocols, the one that elicits higher live birth in IVF/ICSI patients with different ages, ovarian reserves and body mass indexes (BMI) has not been identified. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study about 8579 women who underwent the first IVF-ET from January, 2018 to August, 2021. Propensity Score Matching (PSM) was used to improve the comparability between two protocols. Results: After PSM, significant higher live birth rates were found in the GnRH agonist long-acting protocol compared to GnRH antagonist protocol (44.04% vs. 38.32%) (p<0.001). Stratified analysis showed that for those with AMH levels between 3 ng/ml and 6 ng/ml, with BMI ≥ 24 kg/m Conclusions: The suitability of the GnRH agonist long-acting protocol or GnRH antagonist protocol to infertility patients is dependent on specific biological characteristics of the patients.

Indexed as

Gonadotropin-Releasing HormoneOvaryAdultFemaleHormone AntagonistsHumansOvulation InductionRetrospective StudiesGonadotropin-Releasing HormoneHormone Antagonistsbody mass indexGnRH agonist long-acting protocolGnRH antagonist protocollive birth rateovarian reserve

Identifiers

PMID35937797
PMCPMC9355571

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.