Trial reportGynecologic and obstetric investigation2025
Progesterone Vaginal Gel or Combined Medication for Luteal-Phase Support of Frozen-Thawed Embryo Transfer Cycles: A Single-Centre, Chinese, Randomized, Open-Label, Pilot Study.
Trial report in Gynecologic and obstetric investigation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to explore potential differences in efficacy between vaginal progesterone (VPG) and VPG + oral progesterone (OPG) for luteal-phase support in hormone replacement therapy-frozen embryo transfer (HRT-FET) cycles.
designA single-centre, open-label, randomized controlled, phase IV pilot study was conducted. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,
methodsInfertile women aged 20-38 years undergoing HRT-FET cycles were included. Participants were randomized to VPG (n = 86) or VPG + OPG (n = 86). The primary efficacy endpoint was ongoing pregnancy at 10-12 weeks. Secondary efficacy endpoints included β-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG) positivity, implantation rate, and clinical-pregnancy rate. Safety analyses included adverse events (AE) and vital signs.
resultsA higher ongoing pregnancy rate was observed with VPG + OPG (29.1%) versus VPG (18.8%); treatment difference 8.4% (90% confidence interval [CI] -2.2%, 19.0%). Numerical differences also favoured VPG + OPG over VPG for β-hCG positivity (0.9% [90% CI: -10.8%, 12.7%]), implantation (10.4% [90% CI: 0.5%, 21.3%]), and clinical pregnancy (10.1% [90% CI: -0.8%, 21.1%]). Incidences of treatment-emergent AEs were comparable. LIMITATIONS: The single-centre study was limited by a relatively small sample size which could have impacted the reported outcomes. Another limitation was the open-label design, which might have increased the risk of bias for subjective endpoints, such as AE reporting.
conclusionsA higher ongoing pregnancy rate was observed with VPG + OPG vs VPG; however, a statistical conclusion cannot be reached considering the small sample size. These data suggest that a minimum daily progesterone dose, such as VPG 90 mg + OPG 20 mg reported here, or VPG 180 mg reported in other studies, may be required for successful outcomes following HRT-FET cycles.
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.