ArticleInternational journal of fertility & sterility2024
Comparison
Article in International journal of fertility & sterility, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Optimal selection of ovarian stimulation protocol for infertile women with diminished ovarian reserve based on Bologna and POSEIDON criteria: a network meta-analysis.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2026Pooled it
- ESHRE guideline: ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI: an update in 2025†.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2026Guideline
- The impact of Duostim protocol on pregnancy outcomes in infertile patients: A meta-analysis comparing single and double conventional stimulation cycles.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2024Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVarious protocols have been approved to improve the response rate leading to successful fertilization in poor ovarian responders (PORs). The application of double ovarian stimulation (DuoStim) in the follicular and luteal phases of the same ovarian cycle has been shown as an intriguing option to achieve more oocyte retrievals in the shortest time. The aim of the current study is to compare the outcomes of different protocols, minimal stimulation (MS) and Duostim. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis randomized clinical trial was performed on 42
resultsThe patients' characteristics including age, anti-mullerian hormone (AMH), follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), and antral follicle count (AFC) were collected and compared. It showed there was no significant difference between the two groups baseline characteristics (P>0.05). We observed that the DuoStim protocol resulted in a significantly higher score in comparison with the MS protocols , including the number of follicles (6.23 ± 2.93 vs. 1.77 ± 1.66, P<0.001), retrieved oocytes (3.86 ± 2.57 vs. 1.68 ± 1.58, P=0.002), MII oocytes (3.36 ± 2.42 vs. 1.27 ± 1.27, P=0.001) and obtained embryos (2.04 ± 1.64 vs. 0.77 ± 0.86, P=0.003).
conclusionThe DuoStim protocol is a favourable and time saving plan that is associated with more oocytes in a single stimulation cycle. The DuoStim protocol significantly can result in more frequent MII oocytes and embryos. We figured that the higher number of oocytes and embryos might have led to a higher rate of pregnancy (registration number: IRCT20200804048303N1).
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.