ArticlePloS one2023
Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation for fertility preservation in women with cancer: A comparative study.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Feasibility and efficacy of random-start progestin-primed ovarian stimulation: a multicenter pilot randomized controlled trial in oocyte donation.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2025Trial
- Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation for oocyte cryopreservation in patients with nonmedical indications: a case-control study.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2025Observational
- Re-embarking in ART while still breastfeeding: an unresolved question.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Review
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn women scheduled for cancer treatment, oocytes cryopreservation is a well-established procedure. Random start protocols have been a substantial improvement in this setting, allowing to prevent delay in the initiation of cancer treatments. However, there is still the need to optimize the regimen of ovarian stimulation, to make treatments more patient-friendly and to reduce costs.
methodsThis retrospective study compares two periods (2019 and 2020), corresponding to two different ovarian stimulation regimens. In 2019, women were treated with corifollitropin, recombinant FSH and GnRH antagonists. Ovulation was triggered with GnRH agonists. In 2020, the policy changed, and women were treated with a progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol with human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) and dual trigger (GnRH agonist and low dose hCG) Continuous data are reported as median [Interquartile Range]. To overcome expected changes in baseline characteristics of the women, the primary outcome was the ratio between the number of mature oocytes retrieved and serum anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) in ng/ml.
resultsOverall, 124 women were selected, 46 in 2019 and 78 in 2020. The ratio between the number of mature oocytes retrieved and serum AMH in the first and second period was 4.0 [2.3-7.1] and 4.0 [2.7-6.8], respectively (p = 0.80). The number of scans was 3 [3-4] and 3 [2-3], respectively (p<0.001). The total costs of the drugs used for ovarian stimulation were 940 € [774-1,096 €] and 520 € [434-564 €], respectively (p<0.001).
conclusionsRandom start PPOS with hMG and dual trigger represents an easy and affordable ovarian stimulation protocol for fertility preservation in women with cancer, showing similar efficacy and being more friendly and economical.
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.