Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38948522›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2024

Effectiveness and safety of GnRH antagonist originator and generic in real-world clinical practice: a retrospective cohort study.

Mingzhu Cao, Yuqi Hu, Jiaqi Xiao, Sichen Li, Yanshan Lin, Jianqiao Liu, Haiying Liu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Mingzhu Cao *Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Center for Reproductive Medicine, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Major Obstetric Diseases, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Obstetrics and Gynecology, Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area Higher Education Joint Laboratory of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Yuqi Hu *Department of Clinical Laboratory Medicine, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Jiaqi Xiao *Department of Clinical Medicine, The Nanshan College of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Sichen LiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Center for Reproductive Medicine, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Major Obstetric Diseases, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Obstetrics and Gynecology, Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area Higher Education Joint Laboratory of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Yanshan LinDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Center for Reproductive Medicine, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Major Obstetric Diseases, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Obstetrics and Gynecology, Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area Higher Education Joint Laboratory of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Jianqiao LiuDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Center for Reproductive Medicine, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Major Obstetric Diseases, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Obstetrics and Gynecology, Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area Higher Education Joint Laboratory of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Haiying LiuDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Center for Reproductive Medicine, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Major Obstetric Diseases, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Obstetrics and Gynecology, Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area Higher Education Joint Laboratory of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This study aims to determine whether the live birth rates were similar between GnRH antagonist original reference product Cetrotide Methods: This retrospective cohort study investigates COS cycles utilizing GnRH antagonist protocols. The research was conducted at a specialized reproductive medicine center within a tertiary care hospital, spanning the period from October 2019 to October 2021. Within this timeframe, a total of 924 cycles were administered utilizing the GnRH antagonist originator, Cetrotide Results: Ovarian reserve markers, including anti-Mullerian hormone, antral follicle number, and basal follicular stimulating hormone, were lower in Group A compared to Group B. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to balance these markers between the groups. After PSM, baseline clinical features were similar, except for a slightly longer infertile duration in Group A versus Group B (4.43 ± 2.92 years vs. 4.14 ± 2.84 years, Conclusion: The retrospective analysis revealed no clinically significant differences in reproductive outcomes between Cetrotide

Indexed as

Gonadotropin-Releasing HormoneHormone AntagonistsOvulation InductionAdultBirth RateDrugs, GenericFemaleHumansOvarian ReservePregnancyPregnancy RateRetrospective StudiescetrorelixDrugs, GenericGonadotropin-Releasing HormoneHormone AntagonistsCetrotide®Ferpront®genericGnRH antagonistlive birth rate

Identifiers

PMID38948522
PMCPMC11211621

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.