ArticleReproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.)2023
Controlled Ovarian Stimulation Initiated at Different Phases of the Menstrual Cycle for Fertility Preservation in Oncological Patients: a Retrospective Study.
Article in Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of Controlled Ovarian Stimulation for Oocyte Preservation in Oncologic Patients: Insights from DuoStim Protocol.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Clinical practice guideline for female fertility preservation.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Breast cancer Treatment and Fertility Preservation: A Narrative Review of Impacts, Strategies and Ethical Considerations.Current oncology reports · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to compare conventional start in early follicular phase (EFP) with late follicular phase (LFP) and luteal phase (LP) in controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) for fertility preservation (FP) to assess differences in clinical outcomes. Retrospective study of the first cycles of COS for FP in oncological patients between 2012 and 2020 in a tertiary hospital. Two-hundred forty-eight cycles were classified into 3 groups: 176 cycles in EFP, 8 cycles in LFP, and 52 cycles in LP. Comparing LFP to EFP, there were no differences in number of oocytes (10.0 [6.3-16.0] vs 12.0 [8.0-18.0]; p = 0.253) or number of metaphase II (MII) obtained (7.0 [2.3-13.3] vs 9.0 [6.0-13.0]; p = 0.229). Total number of days needed was higher in LFP (14.5 [12.5-16.0] vs 3.0 vs 10.0 [8.3-11.0 p = 0.000) but without significant differences in number of days of usage of gonadotropins (11.5 [8.3-12.8] vs 10.0 [8.3-11.0] p = 0.308). No differences were found between LP and EFP in number of oocytes (14.5 [9.0-20.0] p = 0.151) or MII (11.5 [7.0-16.0] p = 0.084). Number of days of gonadotropins (11.0 [10.0-12.0] p = 0.00) and total dosing (3000.0 [2475.0-3600.0] p = 0.013) were significantly higher in LP. FORT and FOI were similar in all groups. COS with a random start in fertility preservation has similar outcomes to EFP start. Therefore, we can initiate COS at any phase of the menstrual cycle with optimal results. However, LP may need more days of stimulation.
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.