ArticleF&S reports2024
The role of elagolix in ovulation suppression during controlled ovarian stimulation: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in F&S reports, 2024. 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.
- Oral GnRH antagonists for ovulation suppression during ovarian stimulation protocols: systemic review and meta-analysis.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Pooled it
- Elagolix for ovulation suppression in in vitro fertilization: Is it time to switch from the painful costly injectables?F&S reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare in vitro fertilization treatment outcomes for the oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist elagolix (E) to the conventionally used injectable GnRH antagonist ganirelix (G) for achieving pituitary gonadotropin suppression during a controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) cycle. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Private university-affiliated fertility center. Patients: One hundred and ninety-four infertility patients receiving either E or G for pituitary suppression during the COS cycle. Exposure: Use of E for ovulation suppression during the COS cycle. Main Outcome Measures: Biochemical pregnancy, sustained implantation, and cycle cancellation rates were the primary outcome measures. Secondary outcomes included miscarriage, fertilization, and blastulation rates. Results: The groups did not differ in their baseline demographic characteristics (age, body mass index, hormone profiles, total dosage of gonadotropins, number of oocytes retrieved, and number of embryos transferred). The overall cycle cancellation rates were 7.0% and 4.9% for e and G, respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant. For the frozen embryo transfers, the biochemical pregnancy, sustained implantation, and miscarriage rates for E were 74.5%, 51.0%, and 31.6%, respectively. For G, these were 55.9%, 39.8%, and 28.8%. Out of these outcomes, only the biochemical pregnancy rates were significantly different. For the fresh embryo transfers, biochemical pregnancy, sustained implantation, and miscarriage rates for E were 33.3%, 33.3%, and 0.0%, and for G, they were 37.5%, 25.0%, and 33.3%. None of the differences reached significance. Conclusions: The oral GnRH antagonist, E, may be as effective as the injected antagonist, G, regarding embryological and clinical outcomes and could offer a less invasive, more cost-effective, and "patient-friendly" approach to pituitary suppression for in vitro fertilization treatment.
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.