ArticleCureus2024
The Impact of Progesterone Administration Routes on Endometrial Receptivity and Clinical Outcomes in Assisted Reproductive Technology Cycles.
Article in Cureus, 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.
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
Introduction Assisted reproductive technologies (ART) rely on endometrial receptivity (ER) for successful embryo implantation. This study aimed to compare the impact of different progesterone administration routes on ER assessed using optimal time for endometrial receptivity analysis (OpERA) and clinical outcomes in ART cycles. Methods A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted on 281 infertile women who underwent in vitro fertilization (IVF). Patients were stratified based on progesterone administration routes: oral and vaginal progesterone (Group 1) vs. intramuscular progesterone (Group 2). OpERA was performed on 257 patients to assess ER. Clinical outcomes, including biochemical pregnancy rate (BPR), clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), implantation rate (IR), and abortion rate (AR), were compared between the groups. Results OpERA results showed no significant differences between Group 1 and Group 2 in receptive (51.2% vs. 52.0%, p = 0.857), pre-receptive (44.1% vs. 44.6%, p = 0.933), or post-receptive (4.7% vs. 3.1%, p = 0.496) states. Clinical outcomes, including BPR (59.9% vs. 60.9%, p = 0.903), CPR (50.0% vs. 56.5%, p = 0.463), IR (52.5% vs. 55.3%, p = 0.748), and AR (44.3% vs. 45.6%, p = 0.882), did not significantly differ between the groups. Conclusion Progesterone administration routes did not significantly affect ER or clinical outcomes, highlighting the need to prioritize understanding and enhancing ER instead of solely focusing on progesterone delivery methods. Identifying molecular pathways or biomarkers could improve receptivity and optimize ART, ultimately improving pregnancy outcomes.
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.