ArticleF&S reports2023
Conventional follicular-phase ovarian stimulation vs. luteal-phase stimulation in suboptimal responders: a randomized controlled trial.
Article in F&S reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03939390 (Conventional Stimulation in Follicular Phase vs. Luteal Phase Stimulation in Patients With Suboptimal Response. Randomized Clinical Trial. SUBLUTEAL Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Conventional Stimulation in Follicular Phase vs. Luteal Phase Stimulation in Patients With Suboptimal Response. Randomized Clinical Trial. SUBLUTEAL Study
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- ESHRE guideline: ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI: an update in 2025†.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2026Guideline
- FSH Receptor Asn680Ser Polymorphism Modulates Intrafollicular Nitric Oxide Bioavailability and Ovarian Responsiveness During IVF.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Follicular versus luteal stimulation in suboptimal responders: Maybe timing isn't everything?F&S reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the oocyte yield between follicular-phase stimulation (FPS) and luteal-phase stimulation (LPS) in suboptimal responders. Design: Prospective, randomized, crossover clinical trial. Patients: Forty-one patients with infertility according to the POSEIDON (Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing IndividualizeD Oocyte Number) criteria (1b/2b). Interventions: Crossover study on 2 assigned ovarian stimulations that started randomly in the follicular or luteal phase. The in vitro fertilization cycles were not consecutive but separated in time (45 days to 6 months). The random crossover design ensured that all subjects received the first treatment by chance. Main Outcome Measures: The primary objective was the number of cumulus-oocyte complexes retrieved in each cycle. Secondary objectives were number of metaphase II and fertilized oocytes, additional doses of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone, and the duration of ovarian stimulation (days). Results: The mean number of cumulus-oocyte complexes retrieved was similar between the FPS and LPS groups (7.5 ± 4.6 vs. 7.0 ± 4.1; 95% confidence interval [CI] for the mean, 5.8-8.7 vs. 5.6-8.3, respectively; the difference between means, -0.5; 95% CI, -1.8 to +1.5). Similarly, the mean number of metaphase II oocytes retrieved was not different between the FPS and LPS groups (5.4 ± 3.6 vs. 5.2 ± 2.8; 95% CI for the mean, 4.2-6.5 vs. 4.3-6.1, respectively; the difference between means, -0.2; 95% CI, -1.2 to +1.1). Moreover, the secondary objectives were similar between FPS and LPS groups. Conclusions: In this study, the oocyte yield in LPS did not increase in suboptimal responders compared with that in FPS when the onset of LPS was separated in time from FPS. Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT039393990 https://beta.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03939390.
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.