ArticleScientific reports2024
Comparative efficacy of different growth hormone supplementation protocols in improving clinical outcomes in women with poor ovarian response undergoing assisted reproductive therapy: a network meta-analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Growth hormone improves the pregnancy outcomes in poor ovarian responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: an umbrella review.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Pooled it
- The immune microenvironment: a key regulator of ovarian function during ovarian aging.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- The role of growth hormone in assisted reproductive technology for patients with diminished ovarian reserve: from signaling pathways to clinical applications.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Review
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Growth hormone (GH) has a long-standing history of use as an adjunctive therapy in the treatment of poor ovarian response (POR), but the optimal dosage and timing remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of different GH supplementation protocols through a network meta-analysis (NMA) and determine the optimal treatment protocol. This study was reported based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews for Network Meta-Analysis (PRISMA-NMA) statement. Databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Embase were searched until June 2023. A total of 524 records were retrieved in our search, and 23 clinical studies comprising 4889 cycles were involved. Seven different GH protocols were identified. Results showed that compared to the control group, daily administration of 4-8 IU of GH during the follicular phase of the stimulation cycle had the best comprehensive therapeutic effects on improving the number of retrieved oocytes, mature oocytes, endometrial thickness, and reducing gonadotropin requirements in POR patients undergoing assisted reproductive therapy, with a relatively brief treatment duration and a moderate total GH dose. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that this protocol could significantly improve the clinical pregnancy rate of POR patients in the randomized controlled trials (RCT) subgroup and the African subgroup. Therefore, its clinical application is suggested. Besides, the potential advantages of long-term GH supplementation protocol (using GH for at least 2 weeks before oocyte retrieval) has merit for further research. Rigorous and well-designed multi-arm RCTs are needed in the future to confirm the conclusions drawn from this study.
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.