ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2023
Cumulative live birth rate in mild versus conventional stimulation in progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocols for individuals with low prognosis.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2023. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reevaluating statistical methods for proportion-based laboratory outcomes in assisted reproduction.Journal of ovarian research · 2026Review
- Comparative analysis of cumulative live birth rates in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss undergoing preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy versus conventional in vitro fertilisation/intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a retrospective study.Journal of ovarian research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) of mild stimulation and conventional stimulation for the low-prognosis population undergoing PPOS protocols. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study. We included women with a low prognosis. All women underwent PPOS protocols, and the starting gonadotropin (Gn) dose was 150 IU or 300 IU. The primary outcome measure was CLBR. The secondary outcome measures were the number of oocytes retrieved, number of 2PN oocytes and number of available embryos. Results: In total, 171 women with mild stimulation and 1810 women with conventional stimulation met the criteria. In the PSM model, 171 mild stimulation cycles were matched with 513 conventional stimulation cycles. The gonadotropin dosage in the mild stimulation group was significantly lower than that in the conventional stimulation group (1878.6 ± 1065.7 vs. 2854.7 ± 821.0, P<0.001). The numbers of oocytes retrieved, 2PN oocytes, available embryos and high-quality embryos were also higher in the conventional stimulation group than in the mild stimulation group (P<0.05). There was no significant between-group difference in the cumulative clinical pregnancy rate (26.3% vs. 27.5%, P=0.77). The CLBR after mild stimulation was similar to that after conventional stimulation (21.1% vs. 22.0%, P=0.79). Conclusion: In our study, we found that the CLBRs of mild stimulation and conventional stimulation were similar, despite conventional stimulation resulting in significantly more oocytes and embryos. Thus, mild stimulation can be considered an option for women with a low prognosis in PPOS protocols.
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.