ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Effect of repeated controlled ovarian stimulation on pregnancy outcomes in fresh embryo transfer cycles: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIt is ambiguous whether the multiple COS with supraphysiologic hormonal doses impact ovarian reserve functions or pregnancy outcomes. The aim is to explore the effect of multiple COS during ART on ovarian reserve function and clinical pregnancy outcomes in infertile women.
methodsThe retrospective study included 45,555 IVF/ICSI fresh cycles enrolled between January 2015 and March 2021 and were segregated into 5 different cycle cohorts. The participants were retrospectively grouped according to the number of repeated cycles. The primary observables symbolizing ovarian reserve function were antral follicle count (AFC) and anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH). We analyzed clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), live birth rates (LBR), and early miscarriage rate (EMR) to explore clinical pregnancy outcomes.
resultsAmong populations with different numbers of COS cycles, regression analyses found that the number of COS cycles had no significant impact on pregnancy outcomes (p > 0.05) after adjusting for confounding factors. However, factors such as age, BMI, and embryo transfer parameters showed significant associations with pregnancy outcomes. Intra-group analysis within same population revealed that, basal FSH, basal LH, AMH, and AFC exhibit no significant distinction (P > 0.05). Cycle 2 in Group B (aOR = 8.29; 95% CI, 6.80-10.12; P = 0.000), Cycle 3 in Group C (aOR = 6.05; 95% CI, 3.28-11.15; P = 0.000) and Cycle 4 in Group D (aOR = 20.46; 95% CI, 3.05-137.24; P = 0.002) had the highest CPR within each group; Cycle 2 in Group B and Cycle 3 in Group C had the highest LBR and lowest EMR within each group, and the differences did not reached statistical significance in the remaining groups. CONCLUSION(S): The number of COS cycles did not significantly adversely affect pregnancy outcomes across different populations. In self-controlled comparisons within the same population, repeated COS (≤ 5 cycles) may not impair ovarian reserve function, while repeated COS (≤ 4 cycles) positively influenced clinical pregnancy outcomes, suggesting a potential cumulative effect.
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.