Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36303972›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in reproductive health2021

Luteal Phase Support Using Subcutaneous Progesterone: A Systematic Review.

Alessandro Conforti, Luigi Carbone, Giuseppe Gabriele Iorio, Federica Cariati, Francesca Bagnulo, Vincenzo Marrone, Ida Strina, Carlo Alviggi

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in reproductive health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Reproductive outcome after frozen embryo transfer with hormone replacement therapy according to luteal-phase support protocol: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Alessandro ConfortiDepartment of Neuroscience, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Luigi CarboneDepartment of Neuroscience, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Giuseppe Gabriele IorioDepartment of Neuroscience, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Federica CariatiCEINGE-Biotecnologie Avanzate Scarl, Naples, Italy.
Francesca BagnuloIVF Unit, AOU Policlinico Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Vincenzo MarroneIVF Unit, AOU Policlinico Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Ida StrinaDepartment of Neuroscience, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Carlo AlviggiDepartment of Neuroscience, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
University of Naples Federico II · ITFederico II University Hospital · ITCeinge Biotecnologie Avanzate (Italy) · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Luteal phase support (LPS) is crucial in assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles when the luteal phase has been found to be defective. Such deficiency is most likely related to the supraphysiological steroid levels that usually occurr in stimulated cycles which, in turn, could severely affect luteinizing hormone (LH) secretion and function, thereby negatively influencing the luteal phase. A number of different medications and routes have been successfully used for LPS in ART. Although an optimal protocol has not yet been identified, the existing plethora of medications offer the opportunity to personalize LPS according to individual needs. Subcutaneous administration progesterone has been proposed for LPS and could represent an alternative to a vaginal and intramuscular route. The aim of the present systematic review is to summarize the evidence found in the literature concerning the application of subcutaneous progesterone in ARTs, highlighting the benefits and limits of this novel strategy. With this aim in mind, we carried out systematic research in the Medline, ISI Web of Knowledge, and Embase databases from their inception through to November 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were preferred by the authors in the elaboration of this article, although case-control and cohort studies have also been considered. According to our findings, evidence exists which supports that, in women with a good prognosis undergoing a fresh

Indexed as

assisted reproductive technologyin-vitro fertilizationluteal phase defectluteal phase supportovulation inductionprogesteronesubcutaneous progesteronesystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36303972
PMCPMC9580777
OpenAlexW3187922658

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.