Trial reportScientific reports2025
The first multiple center prospective study of rhFSH CTP in patients undergoing assisted reproductive technology in China.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We assessed the safety and efficacy of rhFSH-CTP, a novel long-acting FSH agent, in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for patients undergoing ART. A multi-center, open-label, randomized, positive-control, non-inferiority clinical trial was conducted. The study consisted of a phase III randomized design, with a 1:1 ratio favoring the rhFSH-CTP group over the control group. Eligible patients in the rhFSH-CTP group received a single dose of rhFSH-CTP at 100-150 µg for the first 7d of stimulation following a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol. In total, 142 and 141 patients received rhFSH-CTP and rhFSH, respectively. At a confidence interval of 95%, the difference in the number of oocytes (1.13-4.22, 2.67) suggested that rhFSH-CTP was not inferior to rhFSH. Additionally, the top-quality embryos, implantation rates, and pregnancy outcomes were similar between the two groups (P > 0.05). In the rhFSH-CTP group, no cases of severe OHSS were observed, which was a significant improvement compared to the 1.4% incidence in the rhFSH group. With regard to another safety endpoint, no patients tested positive for adenosine deaminase (ADA) in the rhFSH-CTP group. The results demonstrated that the product had a comparable safety profile to pregnancy outcomes and newborn information in the control group, indicating its suitability for use.
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.