ArticleInternational journal of fertility & sterility2025
The Effects of Three Methods of Luteal Phase Support on Pregnancy Outcomes in Poor Ovarian Responders: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Article in International journal of fertility & sterility, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02798653 (Comparison of Different Methods for Luteal Phase Support in IVF / ICSI Cycles With Antagonist Protocol in Women With Poor Ovarian Response), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Comparison of Different Methods for Luteal Phase Support in IVF / ICSI Cycles With Antagonist Protocol in Women With Poor Ovarian Response
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe effectiveness of changing the type of luteal phase support in patients with poor ovarian response (POR) remains unclear based on the available evidence. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of various luteal phase support (LPS) methods, including progesterone alone, human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) alone, and the combination of progesterone with hCG, in these patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this randomized clinical trial, 375 patients diagnosed with POR based on the Bologna criteria underwent intracytoplasmic sperm injection-embryo transfer (ET) cycles at the Royan Institute between November 2015 and June 2019. The patients were allocated randomly into three different LPS groups on the day of oocyte pickup. In the first group, 1500 IU of hCG on the ET day, as well as 4 days after that were administrated intramuscularly. In the second group, the patients received 1500 IU of hCG IM on the ET day, as well as 3 and 6 days after the ET along with vaginal progesterone suppositories of 400 mg twice daily. For the third group, only vaginal suppositories twice daily were administrated from the day of oocyte pick up until the pregnancy test day. The clinical pregnancy, miscarriage and live birth rates were compared among groups using appropriate statistical tests.
resultsThe data analysis indicated that the three groups were comparable, and there were no significant differences among the groups in terms of implantation, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, and live birth rates. The twin pregnancy rate in the hCG-only group was higher than in the other two groups, although this difference did not reach statistical significance (P=0.060).
conclusionSimilar pregnancy and live birth rates were observed among different LPS regimens. Interestingly, the use of two boluses of low-dose hCG (1500) was associated with a slight increase in multiple pregnancies. We suggest this effective method, which is easier and more patient-friendly (registration number: NCT02798653).
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.