SynthesisJBRA assisted reproduction2023
Dual trigger vs. Conventional trigger outcomes in In Vitro Fertilization. Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in JBRA assisted reproduction, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Beyond the Umbrella: A Systematic Review of the Interventions for the Prevention of and Reduction in the Incidence and Severity of Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome in Patients Who Undergo In Vitro Fertilization Treatments.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Pooled it
- Dual trigger improves the pregnancy rate in fresh in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles compared with the human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) trigger: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2023Pooled it
- Empty Follicle Syndrome: Current Therapeutic Approaches and the Role of Triggering Agents in Assisted Reproductive Technology.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Association between acupuncture and IVF outcomes in women with poor ovarian response: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Article
- The Trigger in IVF Cycles: Molecular Pathways and Clinical Implications.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Dual triggering for final oocyte maturation. A narrative review.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Review
- In Vitro Fertilization Outcomes With a Dual Trigger in Normoresponders in Antagonist Cycles.Cureus · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study is to analyze the efficacy of the dual trigger (human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) + GnRH agonists) compared to the conventional trigger (hCG) in terms of oocyte retrieval (number and oocyte maturity), fertilization rate or number of embryos with two pronuclei, number of high-quality embryos, number of transferred embryos, number of cryopreserved embryos, implantation rate, positive β-hCG rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, abortion rate, and live birth rate.
methodsThis search performed in this systematic review included all literature published in the PubMed database of studies on controlled ovarian stimulation with dual trigger compared with conventional trigger. The meta-analysis included clinical trials and prospective cohort studies.
resultsStatistically significant differences between groups (dual trigger vs. hCG trigger) in terms of number of oocytes retrieved and live birth rate favored the dual trigger protocol. No statistically significant differences were found in the other studied variables. A tend favoring the dual trigger protocol was observed in all studied parameters.
conclusionsDual trigger seems to be more effective in GnRH antagonist cycles in terms of embryo and pregnancy outcome.
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.