ArticleReproductive medicine and biology
Chlormadinone acetate in progestin-primed ovarian stimulation does not negatively affect clinical results.
Article in Reproductive medicine and biology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 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
- Chlormadinone acetate in progestin-primed ovarian stimulation does not negatively affect clinical results.Reproductive medicine and biologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate whether progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) with chlormadinone acetate (CMA) adversely affects clinical results and neonatal outcomes, or causes congenital deformities. Methods: This retrospective study was conducted at private IVF clinic from November 2018 to November 2021. Women underwent oocyte retrieval using gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol ( Results: Patient characteristics were similar in both groups. The median LH level (mIU/mL) at trigger in the GnRH antagonist group [2.0 (1.2-3.7)] was significantly higher than in the PPOS group [0.9 (0.3-1.7)]. There was no cycle with premature LH surge in the PPOS group. Fertilization and blastocyst formation rates did not differ significantly between groups. Furthermore, clinical outcomes were also similar in the two groups. Congenital abnormality rates did not differ significantly [0.9% (3/329), 0.0% (0/17)]. Conclusions: CMA using ovarian stimulation did not negatively affect clinical results. Our data suggest that PPOS with CMA is an appropriate ovarian stimulation method for normal 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.