ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2022
Neonatal outcomes and congenital malformations in children born after progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk factors and treatment strategies for live birth in women with high BMI undergoing ART.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- Medroxyprogesterone acetate vs. GnRH antagonist for preventing premature LH surge during ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2026Article
- Three different protocols for pituitary suppression: progestins (dydrogesterone or medroxyprogesterone acetate) versus GnRH antagonist-balancing efficacy and cost in ovarian stimulation.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Article
- Unlocking Success: The Optimal Gonadotrophin Starting Point for Luteal-Phase Stimulation in IVF Patients with Normal Responses.International journal of women's health · 2025Article
- Endometrial compaction is associated with the outcome of artificial frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles: a retrospective cohort study.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2023Article
- Verification of the utility of the gonadotropin starting dose calculator in progestin-primed ovarian stimulation: A comparison of empirical and calculated controlled ovarian stimulation.Reproductive medicine and biologyArticle
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to assess the safety of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol regarding the neonatal outcomes and congenital malformations in babies born after Methods: In this large retrospective cohort study, a total of 16,493 infants born between 1 September 2013 and 31 July 2021 from IVF and FET cycles after treatment with either PPOS (n = 15,245) or gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-ant) (n = 1,248) were finally enrolled. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of congenital malformations. The secondary outcome measures were rates of low birth weight (LBW), very low birth weight (VLBW), preterm birth (PTB), very preterm birth (VPTB), and early neonatal death. Results: Birth characteristics for both singletons and twins regarding the sex of infants, gestational age, birth weight, and birth length were comparable between the PPOS group and the GnRH-ant group. Rates of LBW, VLBW, PTB, VPTB, and early neonatal death were also similar. The reanalysis using propensity score matching (PSM) and multivariable logistic regression indicated that the PPOS protocol could not increase the risk of adverse neonatal outcomes compared with the GnRH-ant protocol. Furthermore, no significant difference was observed in the overall incidence of congenital malformations in live-born babies. After PSM and controlling for all confounders, the results remained insignificant with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.66 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32-1.34] and 2.43 [95% CI 0.97-6.06], respectively, for singletons and twins. Conclusions: Our study suggests that compared with GnRH-ant treatment for IVF, the PPOS protocol could not produce a negative effect on the newborn population in terms of neonatal outcomes and congenital malformations.
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.