ArticlePeerJ2023
Retrospective study of influencing factors on the outcomes of luteal phase stimulation in patients with dual stimulation.
Article in PeerJ, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Double stimulation in the same menstrual cycle (DuoStim): a comparative evaluation of follicular and luteal phase response.Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Dual/double stimulation (DS) is an ovarian stimulation strategy that has emerged in recent years; it is characterized by two rounds of ovarian stimulation and oocyte retrieval in the same menstrual cycle. DS can greatly shorten the time required to obtain valid embryos in assisted reproduction. For fertility preservation, DS can speed up oocyte storage process. However, factors influencing luteal phase ovarian stimulation (LPS) outcomes in DS have not been elucidated. Methods: A total of 156 cycles from 78 cases were studied. Patients were grouped and analyzed according to their follicular phase ovarian stimulation (FPS) types. Female ages, ovarian stimulation protocols, number of oocytes retrieved, embryo quality were recorded. Comparisons of outcomes were conducted between different groups. Results: Our study found that LPS obtained similar outcomes to follicular phase stimulation (FPS), and that the choice of FPS protocol affected the efficiency of LPS, the antagonist protocol and progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol resulted in better embryo outcomes in LPS. In LPS of DS, sufficient stimulation duration was the guarantee of embryo quality (number of available embryos: β = 0.145, 95% CI [0.078-0.211], Discussion: This study provided ideas for the precise use of DS. We suggest to further expand the sample size of DS in the future, conduct prospective controlled studies, unify the sample size of each subgroup, include the ovarian reserve of patients in the grouping basis, and exclude the influence of male factors. We hope that this study will help further refinement of DS so as to maximize patient benefits from it. Conclusion: When the DS strategy is considered in the follicular phase, the antagonist protocol and PPOS protocol are more recommended for better embryo outcomes in LPS. During LPS, adequate ovarian stimulation duration is the most important guarantee for LPS efficiency.
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.