Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37143731›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2023

Comparison of cumulative live birth rates between progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol and gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol in different populations.

Ruiqiong Zhou, Mei Dong, Li Huang, Songlu Wang, Lin Fan, Xiangping Liang, Xiqian Zhang, Fenghua Liu

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT06812559 completednot on this map

Progesterone Primed Ovarian Stimulation Versus Gonadotrophin-Releasing Hormone Antagonist in Women With Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorEl Shatby University Hospital for Obstetrics and GynecologyRan2023 to 2025Enrolled100ConditionsControlled Ovarian Hyperstimulation, Polycystic Ovarian SyndromeArmsProgesterone, GnRH antagonist (Cetrorelix)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ruiqiong ZhouCenter for Reproductive Medicine, Guangdong Women and Children Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Mei DongCenter for Reproductive Medicine, Guangdong Women and Children Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Li HuangCenter for Reproductive Medicine, Guangdong Women and Children Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Songlu WangCenter for Reproductive Medicine, Guangdong Women and Children Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Lin FanCenter for Reproductive Medicine, Guangdong Women and Children Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Xiangping LiangCenter for Reproductive Medicine, Guangdong Women and Children Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Xiqian ZhangCenter for Reproductive Medicine, Guangdong Women and Children Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Fenghua LiuCenter for Reproductive Medicine, Guangdong Women and Children Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Guangdong Province Women and Children Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Polycystic Ovary SyndromeProgestinsBirth RateFemaleFertilization in VitroGonadotropin-Releasing HormoneHormone AntagonistsHumansOvulation InductionRetrospective StudiesSteroidsGonadotropin-Releasing HormoneHormone AntagonistsProgestinsSteroidscumulative live birth rateGnRH antagonistnormal ovarian responderPCOSpoor ovarian responderpreimplantation genetic testingprogestin-primed ovarian stimulation

Identifiers

PMID37143731
PMCPMC10151746
OpenAlexW4366293753

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.