Observational studyReproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E2025
Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation for oocyte cryopreservation in patients with nonmedical indications: a case-control study.
Observational study 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 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.
- Emergency Fertility Preservation in Hematological Diseases: Ovarian Response and Real-World Outcomes From China.Reproductive medicine and biologyArticle
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe PPOS (Progestin Primed Ovarian Stimulation) protocol has been evaluated and has proved its effectiveness in preventing the LH (luteinizing hormone) surge. This protocol is often used for cryopreservation for social reasons because it is simpler and more cost-effective. The objective of our study was to evaluate the efficacy and the convenience of the PPOS protocol in the context of oocyte cryopreservation for social reasons.
methodsIn this bicentric matched case‒control study, all PPOS cycles performed for nonmedical reasons between January 2021 and June 2023 were included. Each PPOS cycle was matched with 2 control cycles performed with the antagonist protocol on the basis of the antral follicle count (+/- 5), BMI (+/- 2 kg/cm
resultsThe patient characteristics were comparable, except the median age, which was lower in the antagonist group (35.5 vs. 34.6 years, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in the number of metaphase II (MII) oocytes between the groups (p = 0.91) or in the total number of COCs retrieved (0.94). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of the maturation rate or the OSI (p = 0.38 and p = 0.16). The number of monitoring sessions was significantly lower in the PPOS protocol group (p < 0.001).
conclusionThe response to ovarian stimulation with the PPOS protocol for oocyte cryopreservation in patients with nonmedical indications does not differ statistically from that with the antagonist protocol in terms of the number of MII oocytes. This protocol offers the advantages of a more patient-friendly approach through oral administration, a significantly lower number of monitoring sessions with the same efficacy as the antagonist protocol and could be offered as a first line treatment. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NA. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: NA.
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.