SynthesisJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2024
The impact of Duostim protocol on pregnancy outcomes in infertile patients: A meta-analysis comparing single and double conventional stimulation cycles.
Synthesis in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Another round, another chance: oocyte developmental competence and outcomes in second IVF attempts-the earlier, the better.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Observational
- Ten years of DuoStim in time-sensitive poor-prognosis IVF patients: real world cumulative outcomes and treatment trajectories.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe DuoStim protocol has been proposed as an alternative to conventional single and double stimulation cycles in the treatment of infertility. However, its efficacy in improving pregnancy outcomes remains uncertain.
objectiveTo systematically evaluate the impact of the DuoStim protocol on pregnancy outcomes in infertile patients by comparing it with single and double conventional stimulation cycles.
methodsAn online systematic search was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases, covering the period from their inception to March 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the DuoStim protocol with single and double conventional stimulation cycles in infertile patients were identified. Data were extracted by two independent investigators who screened the literature and assessed the quality of the studies. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software.
resultsA total of six RCTs involving 414 infertile patients were included. The DuoStim protocol significantly increased the total number of oocytes compared to single and double conventional stimulation (MD = - 1.47; 95% CI, - 2.12 to - 0.82; P < 0.00001). There were no statistically significant differences in the number of MII oocytes, total embryos, pregnancy rate, and live birth rate. Subgroup Analysis: compared to single stimulation, the DuoStim protocol significantly increased the number of MII oocytes (MD = 1.71; 95% CI, 0.77 to 2.66; P = 0.0004) and total embryos (MD = 1.34; 95% CI, 0.61 to 2.08; P = 0.0003). There were no significant differences in pregnancy rate and live birth rate. Secondary outcomes showed the effect of the DuoStim protocol in patients undergoing preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A). The time to obtain euploid blastocysts was significantly reduced in the DuoStim group compared to the control group (23.3 ± 2.8 days vs. 44.1 ± 2.0 days; P < 0.001).
conclusionsThe DuoStim protocol shows a significant advantage in increasing the total number of oocytes, MII oocytes, and embryos compared to single stimulation. However, it does not significantly improve pregnancy and live birth rates. The protocol also shortens the time to obtain euploid blastocysts in patients undergoing PGT-A, indicating potential benefits for specific patient groups. Further research is needed to confirm these findings and evaluate long-term outcomes. Thus, the quality of evidence should be considered moderate, warranting cautious interpretation of the results.
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.