ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2023
Comparison of cumulative live birth rates between progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol and gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol in different populations.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06812559 (Progesterone Primed Ovarian Stimulation Versus Gonadotrophin-Releasing Hormone Antagonist in Women With Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome), which is not on this map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 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.
Progesterone Primed Ovarian Stimulation Versus Gonadotrophin-Releasing Hormone Antagonist in Women With Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- A comparison of the effects of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol and gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol in assisted reproductive technology: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Pooled it
- Impact of the PPOS protocol on euploidy embryo rates and reproductive outcomes in preimplantation genetic testing cycles: a systematic review.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Pooled it
- The clinical value of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol for women with diminished ovarian reserve undergoing IVF/ICSI: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Pooled it
- Article
- Risk factors and treatment strategies for live birth in women with high BMI undergoing ART.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- Impact of GnRH antagonist protocols versus progestin-primed ovarian stimulation on reproductive outcomes in advanced reproductive age women: a propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Progestin primed ovarian stimulation yields comparable outcomes to the GnRH antagonist protocol for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Smooth endoplasmic reticulum aggregates in oocytes: a comparison of progestin-primed and GnRH antagonist IVF protocols.Journal of ovarian research · 2025Article
- Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation for oocyte cryopreservation in patients with nonmedical indications: a case-control study.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2025Observational
- Article
- Factors influencing oocyte yield and embryo quality in donor IVF cycles: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
- A simple and practical approach to elective egg freezing to control costs and expand access to care.Journal of ovarian research · 2024Review
- Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation with letrozole using different doses of medroxyprogesterone acetate per day: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024Article
- Gonadotropin-releasing Hormone Antagonist versus Fixed Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation inJournal of human reproductive sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare cumulative live birth rate (LBR) between progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) and GnRH antagonist protocols of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) cycles in different populations. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study. A total of 865 patients were enrolled and separate analyses were performed for three populations: 498 patients with predicted normal ovarian response (NOR), 285 patients with PCOS, and 82 patients with predicted poor ovarian response (POR). The primary outcome was cumulative LBR for one oocyte retrieval cycle. The results of response to ovarian stimulation were also investigated, including numbers of oocytes retrieved, MII oocytes, 2PN, blastocysts, good-quality blastocysts, and usable blastocysts after biopsy, as well as rates of oocyte yield, blastocyst formation, good-quality blastocysts, and moderate or severe OHSS. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to identify potential confounders that may be independently associated with cumulative live birth. Results: In NOR, the cumulative LBR of PPOS protocol was significantly lower than that of GnRH antagonists (28.4% vs. 40.7%; Conclusion: The cumulative LBR of PPOS protocol in PGT cycles is lower than that of GnRH antagonists in NOR. In patients with PCOS, the cumulative LBR of PPOS protocol appears to be lower than that of GnRH antagonists, albeit lacking statistical difference, whereas in patients with diminished ovarian reserve, the two protocols were comparable. Our findings suggest the need for caution when choosing PPOS protocol to achieve live births, especially for normal and high ovarian responders.
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.