Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40119359›Full record

Trial reportReproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E2025

Comparison of outcomes between pulsatile gonadotropin releasing hormone and combined gonadotropin therapy of spermatogenesis in patients with congenital hypogonadotropic hypogonadism.

Yi Zheng, Heng-Zhou Bai, Gui-Cheng Zhao, Kun Tian, Jun-Tao Yue, Ding-Ming Li, Xiao-Hui Jiang

Abstract readClinical TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Yi ZhengHuman Sperm Bank, West China Second University Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China.
Heng-Zhou BaiHuman Sperm Bank, West China Second University Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China.
Gui-Cheng ZhaoHuman Sperm Bank, West China Second University Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China.
Kun TianHuman Sperm Bank, West China Second University Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China.
Jun-Tao YueHuman Sperm Bank, West China Second University Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China.
Ding-Ming LiHuman Sperm Bank, West China Second University Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China. lidingming@scu.edu.cn.
Xiao-Hui JiangHuman Sperm Bank, West China Second University Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China. jxh424@126.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo evaluate whether there was a difference in outcome between pulsatile gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) therapy and human chorionic gonadotropin/human menopausal gonadotropin (hCG/HMG) therapy for induction of spermatogenesis in post-pubertal male patients with congenital hypogonadotropic hypogonadism (CHH).

methodsThis was a single-center retrospective cohort study conducted at the Andrology Center of a university hospital. A total of 155 postpubertal CHH patients who met the inclusion criteria underwent spermatogenic induction at the same andrology center. All patients used pulsatile GnRH therapy or hCG/HMG therapy for at least 6 months. The effects of spermatogenic induction therapy and testicular growth were evaluated. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify statistically significant factors which could predict the outcome of treatment.

resultsThere was no difference in the efficiency of successfully inducing spermatogenesis between pulsatile GnRH therapy and hCG/HMG therapy (82.1% vs. 75.8%, P: 0.356), nor was there a difference in sperm concentration category (SCC) (P: 0.284). However, the mean time required for pulsatile GnRH therapy was shorter (12.34 vs. 14.74 months, P: 0.038). At the treatment endpoint, total testicular volume (TTV) was greater with pulsatile GnRH therapy compared with hCG/HMG therapy (15 vs. 12 ml, P: 0.010), and there was still no difference in SCC (P: 0.310). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that only baseline TTV was statistically significant predictor of induced spermatogenic success (odds ratio, OR: 1.156, 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.013, 1.319). The area under receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.635, a sensitivity of 0.661, and a specificity of 0.588. In addition, multiple linear regression analysis demonstrated that younger age at treatment initiation and higher baseline TTV were significantly associated with increased sperm concentration at the end of treatment.

conclusionPulsatile GnRH therapy was similar to hCG/HMG therapy in inducing spermatogenesis in post-pubertal CHH patients, but it took less time and was more beneficial to testicular development. Larger baseline TTV may mean a better spermatogenic outcome. It was necessary for patients to have more information about spermatogenesis therapy in order to make reasonable medical decisions. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry. ChiCTR2400086876. Retrospectively registered on July 5, 2024.

Indexed as

Chorionic GonadotropinGonadotropin-Releasing HormoneHypogonadismMenotropinsSpermatogenesisAdolescentAdultCohort StudiesDrug Therapy, CombinationHumansMaleRetrospective StudiesTestisTreatment OutcomeYoung AdultChorionic GonadotropinGonadotropin-Releasing HormoneMenotropinsCongenital hypogonadotropic hypogonadismGonadotropin therapyPulsatile gonadotropin-releasing hormone therapySpermatogenesis

Identifiers

PMID40119359
PMCPMC11927256

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.