SynthesisReproductive biomedicine online2023
Random start ovarian stimulation before gonadotoxic therapies in women with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Reproductive biomedicine online, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- ESHRE guideline: ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI: an update in 2025†.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2026Guideline
- Utilization and Fertility Preservation Outcomes in Women Undergoing Embryo Cryopreservation Before Breast Cancer Treatment: A Meta-Analysis.Clinical breast cancer · 2025Pooled it
- 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
- Molecular effects of ovarian stimulation for fertility preservation in breast cancer: a paired-biopsy analysis.ESMO open · 2026Article
- Female fertility preservation: 25 years of progress, expanding indications and future prospects.Human reproduction update · 2026Review
- Beyond survival: Confronting the unmet needs in oncofertility care for young women with breast cancer.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2026Article
- Ovarian responsiveness during random-start stimulation and DuoStim in women: comparative insights from domestic animal models.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
- Effectiveness of Controlled Ovarian Stimulation for Oocyte Preservation in Oncologic Patients: Insights from DuoStim Protocol.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Trends and Regional Differences for Fertility Preservation Procedures in Women With Breast Cancer.Clinical breast cancer · 2025Article
- Comprehensive fertility preservation can be offered in a timely manner around gonadotoxic therapy in children and adolescents.Pediatric blood & cancer · 2024Article
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
Abstract
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to quantify the effect of random start ovarian stimulation (RSOS) compared with conventional start ovarian stimulation (CSOS) in cancer patients before gonadotoxic treatment. The final analytical cohort encompassed 688 RSOS and 1076 CSOS cycles of cancer patients before gonadotoxic treatment. Eleven studies were identified by database searches of MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and cited references. The primary outcomes of interest were the number of oocytes and mature oocytes collected, the number of embryos cryopreserved and the metaphase II (MII)-antral follicle count (AFC) ratio. The studies were rated from medium to high quality (from 6 to 9) according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. The two protocols resulted in similar numbers of oocytes collected, MII oocytes, embryos available for cryopreservation and comparable MII-AFC and fertilization rates. The duration of ovarian stimulation was longer (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.35, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.61; P = 0.009) and gonadotrophin consumption was higher (SMD 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.40; P = 0.009) in RSOS compared with CSOS. This systematic review and meta-analysis show that the duration of stimulation is longer, and the total gonadotrophin consumption is higher in cancer patients undergoing RSOS compared with those undergoing CSOS, with no significant effect on mature oocyte yield.
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.