ArticleScientific reports2024
Follicular challenge test to predict suboptimal response to gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist trigger in elective oocyte cryopreservation cycles.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- GnRH agonist early follicular challenge test as a predictor of ovarian response in antagonist cycles for fertility preservation.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This prospective study aimed to test the ability of follicular GnRH agonist challenge test (FACT) to predict suboptimal response to GnRH agonist trigger, assessed by LH levels post ovulation trigger in non-medical oocyte cryopreservation program. The study included 91 women that underwent non-medical fertility preservation. On day two to menstrual cycle, blood tests were drawn (basal Estradiol, basal FSH, basal LH, Progesterone) and ultrasound (US) was performed. On that evening, the women were instructed to inject 0.2 mg GnRH agonist (FACT) and arrive for repeated blood workup 10-12 h later in the next morning, followed by a flexible antagonist protocol. LH levels on the morning after ovulation trigger were compared to FACT LH levels. The results demonstrated that LH levels following agonist ovulation trigger below 15IU/L occurred in 1.09% of cycles and were predicted by FACT, r = 0.57, p < 0.001. ROC analysis demonstrated that FACT LH > 42.70 IU/L would predict LH post trigger of more than 30 IU/L with 75% sensitivity and 70% specificity, AUC = 0.81. LH levels post trigger also displayed significant positive correlation to basal FSH (r = 0.35, p = 0.002) and basal LH (r = 0.54, p < 0.001). LH levels post ovulation trigger were not associated with total oocytes number or maturity rate. The strongest correlation to the number of frozen oocytes was progesterone levels post agonist trigger (r = 0.746, p < 0.001). We concluded that suboptimal response to agonist trigger, as assessed by post trigger LH levels was a rare event. FACT could serve as an adjunct pre-trigger, intracycle tool to predict adequate LH levels elevation after agonist ovulation trigger. Future studies should focus on optimization of agonist trigger efficacy assessment and prediction, especially in high responders.
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.