Trial reportJBRA assisted reproduction2025
Progesterone Primed Ovarian Stimulation (PPOS) vs. clomiphene Primed Ovarian Stimulation (CPOS) in high responder (HR) patients undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation. A Randomised Control trial.
Trial report in JBRA assisted reproduction, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Controlled ovarian stimulation protocols for assisted reproduction: a network meta-analysis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Progesterone Primed Ovarian Stimulation (PPOS) vs. clomiphene Primed Ovarian Stimulation (CPOS) in high responder (HR) patients undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation. A Randomised Control trial.JBRA assisted reproduction · 2025Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of PPOS and CPOS in high-responder patients undergoing COS for IVF.
methodsThis one-year prospective, randomized, controlled trial included 86 high-responder patients. They were divided into PPOS (n=44) and CPOS (n=42). Both groups underwent COS with hormonal injections, and various parameters, such as LH surge, cycle cancellation rates, birth rates, implantation rates, and more, were measured and compared.
resultsThe study revealed that LH surge occurred in 2.3% of the PPOS group and 2.5% of the CPOS group, with no significant difference (p=0.9). The cycle cancellation rates were 9.1% for PPOS and 10% for CPOS. Birth rates were 57% for PPOS and 54% for CPOS. Implantation rates were 45% for PPOS and 49% for CPOS. There was no significant difference in the duration of stimulation (PPOS: 11.30±1.96 days, CPOS: 11.41±2.02 days, p=0.807) or the total FSH used (PPOS: 2888.95±791.80IU, CPOS: 2808±834.52IU, p=0.655). The PPOS group had a mean of 19.58±8.07 retrieved oocytes, while the CPOS group had a mean of 21.87±10.02, showing no significant difference (p=0.807). Similarly, there was no significant difference (p=0.376) in the number of mature (MII) oocytes between the PPOS group (15.67±6.23) and the CPOS group (17.08±7.96). Post-trigger LH levels were significantly lower in the PPOS group (PPOS: 49.68±27.54IU/L, CPOS: 71.83±43.43IU/L, p-value 0.007), indicating LH surge suppression. Neither group reported cases of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS).
conclusionsPPOS and CPOS offer similar outcomes in high-responder individuals undergoing COS for IVF, except for lower post-trigger LH levels in the PPOS group. Importantly, neither group experienced ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS).
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.