ArticleHealth science reports2024
Comparison of the effect of dydrogesterone and natural micronized progesterone for luteal-phase support in assisted reproductive technology cycles: A single-blind randomized clinical trial study.
Article in Health science reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. 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
- RetractedRETRACTION:2025
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: One of the causes of preterm labor and recurrent abortion is progesterone deficiency in the luteal phase. The aim of the study was a comparison of the effect of oral dydrogesterone and vaginal progesterone for luteal-phase support (LPS) in assisted reproductive technology cycles (ART). Methods: This randomized clinical control trial study was conducted on 207 infertile women. Samples were randomly divided into two groups. The first group received a natural micronized vaginal progesterone (MVP) of 400 mg once daily and the second group received dydrogesterone (Duphestone) 20 mg twice daily. Then chemical pregnancy, abortion, and live births were compared in two groups. Results: The results of the study showed that the vaginal form of the drug could increase the chance of pregnancy (positive β-human chorionic gonadotropin) versus the oral form. According to the results of multiple logistic regression analysis after adjusting for other variables, the live birth rate in the vaginal group was more than five times that of the oral group (odds ratio = 5.07; 95% confidence interval = 1.24-20.65; Conclusion: The vaginal form of the progesterone could increase the chance of pregnancy and the outcome of fertility (live birth). Thus, vaginal progesterone is effective for LPS in women undergoing fresh embryo transfer.
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.