ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2022
Ovarian stimulation in IVF couples with severe male factor infertility: GnRH antagonist versus long GnRH agonist.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adjusting key performance indicators in ART laboratories according to controlled ovarian stimulation protocol.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Article
- Impact of GnRH agonist and GnRH antagonist on GDF9 and BMP15 expression in mouse ovaries and oocyte development.Animal reproduction · 2023Article
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 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To examine the efficacy of gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist (GnRH-ant) protocol and the long GnRH agonist (GnRH-a) protocol during Methods: A total of 983 women with severe male factor infertility undergoing IVF therapy from 2017 to 2020 at one center were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into the GnRH-ant group (n=527) and the GnRH-a group (n=456) according to their ovarian stimulation protocols. Patient baseline characteristics, ovarian stimulation characteristics, and clinical pregnancy outcomes were compared between the groups. The live birth rate was considered the main pregnancy outcome. Results: GnRH-a group had a higher live birth rate compared with the GnRH-ant group (41.0% versus 31.3%, p=0.002). Moreover, the implantation (32.8% vs. 28.1%, p=0.033), biochemical pregnancy (52.4% versus 44.8%, p=0.017), clinical pregnancy (49.3% versus 39.7%, p=0.002) and ongoing pregnancy rates (43.2% vs. 34.9%, p=0.008) were higher in GnRH-a group. For patients with one embryo transferred, the GnRH-a group demonstrated higher live birth (37.0% vs. 19.4%, p=0.010) and ongoing pregnancy rate (38.9% vs. 24.5%, p=0.046) than the GnRH-ant group. Among patients with two embryos transferred, the live birth rate was also higher in the GnRH-a group than in the GnRH-ant group, with no statistical difference. No significant differences were observed in the biochemical abortion rate, clinical miscarriage rate, early miscarriage rate, late miscarriage rate, heterotopic pregnancy rate, twin pregnancy rate, and birth sex ratio between the two groups. Conclusion: For individuals with severe male infertility undergoing IVF, the GnRH-a protocol is considered a more efficient and feasible strategy with a higher live birth rate compared to the GnRH-ant protocol, especially in single embryo transfer.
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.