Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38204945›Full record

ArticleF&S reports2023

Conventional follicular-phase ovarian stimulation vs. luteal-phase stimulation in suboptimal responders: a randomized controlled trial.

Jorge Suñol, Juan Carlos Castillo, José Antonio Ortiz, Jorge Ten, Ana Fuentes, Belén Moliner, María Martínez, Joaquín Llácer, Jaime Guerrero, Ana Pitas and 2 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03939390 phase4completednot on this map

Conventional Stimulation in Follicular Phase vs. Luteal Phase Stimulation in Patients With Suboptimal Response. Randomized Clinical Trial. SUBLUTEAL Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorInstituto BernabeuRan2020 to 2022Enrolled41ConditionsImproving Ovarian Stimulation, Suboptimal RespondersArmstime of administration of Corifollitropin Alfa
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Jorge SuñolBernabeu Institute, Reproductive Medicine, Palma de Mallorca, Spain.
Juan Carlos CastilloBernabeu Institute, Reproductive Medicine, Alicante, Spain.
José Antonio OrtizBernabeu Institute, Reproductive Medicine, Alicante, Spain.
Jorge TenBernabeu Institute, Reproductive Medicine, Alicante, Spain.
Ana FuentesBernabeu Institute, Reproductive Medicine, Elche, Spain.
Belén MolinerBernabeu Institute, Reproductive Medicine, Alicante, Spain.
María MartínezBernabeu Institute, Reproductive Medicine, Cartagena, Spain.
Joaquín LlácerBernabeu Institute, Reproductive Medicine, Alicante, Spain.
Jaime GuerreroBernabeu Institute, Reproductive Medicine, Alicante, Spain.
Ana PitasBernabeu Institute, Reproductive Medicine, Alicante, Spain.
Andrea BernabeuBernabeu Institute, Reproductive Medicine, Alicante, Spain.
Rafael BernabeuBernabeu Institute, Reproductive Medicine, Alicante, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

follicular-phase stimulationIVFluteal phase stimulationovarian stimulationsuboptimal ovarian responders

Identifiers

PMID38204945
PMCPMC10774905

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.