ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2025
Cumulative live birth rates among over 13,000 poor ovarian responders from 2015 to 2023: a retrospective cohort study assessing the efficacy of natural cycle and controlled ovarian stimulation.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 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.
- An injection-lite approach to ovarian stimulation in poor responder patients using corifollitropin alfa and nasal GnRH agonist.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNatural cycle in vitro fertilization (NC-IVF) represents a convenient and safe assisted reproductive technology, making it particularly advantageous for patients with poor ovarian response (POR). This research evaluates the effectiveness of NC-IVF for women with POR, aiming to inform personalized treatment decisions.
methodThis retrospective cohort study encompassed 13,013 cycles involving women diagnosed with poor ovarian response according to the Bologna criteria. These patients underwent either natural cycles or controlled ovarian stimulation cycles. The primary outcome measure was the cumulative live birth rates, and the secondary outcomes included laboratory and clinical outcomes.
resultsA total of 1073 natural cycles and 11,940 COS cycles were analyzed, with 5956 undergoing low-dose gonadotropin treatment and 5984 receiving high-dose gonadotropin. The basic characteristics were comparable among the three groups. In both fresh and frozen embryo transfer cycles, clinical pregnancy rates, implantation rates, and live birth rates were comparable across all three groups. Furthermore, no statistically significant differences were observed in cumulative live birth rates or time to first live birth between the groups examined. Expenditures in the natural cycle group were substantially lower than those in both COS cohorts. Importantly, further analysis indicated that there were no significant differences among the three groups concerning either pregnancy complications or neonatal outcomes.
conclusionOur findings indicate that for women demonstrating a poor ovarian response, NC treatment yields comparable pregnancy and live birth rates when compared to controlled ovarian stimulation methods. The natural cycle represents a safe, effective, and economically viable treatment option for this patient population.
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.