ArticleCureus2025
Evaluation of Assisted Reproductive Technology Outcomes Using Crossover Administration of Two Recombinant Follicle-Stimulating Hormones in the Same Patients.
Article in Cureus, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis crossover study compared the effects of two recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) preparations, follitropin alfa and follitropin delta, on assisted reproductive technology (ART) outcomes.
methodsPatients aged 25-42 years (body mass index: 18-30, anti-Müllerian hormone level ≤2.03 ng/mL) underwent two oocyte retrieval cycles, one with follitropin alfa and the other with follitropin delta, and were divided into four groups based on the crossover use of these preparations. Eighty-one patients received follitropin alfa during both cycles. Fifty-one patients received follitropin delta during both cycles. Forty-four patients received follitropin delta during the first cycle and follitropin alfa during the second cycle. Thirty patients received follitropin alfa during the first cycle and follitropin delta during the second cycle.
resultsThere was no significant difference in the rate of increase in the number of oocytes retrieved between the first and second cycles, regardless of whether follitropin alpha or follitropin delta was used initially. No significant difference in the blastocyst formation rate was observed. However, cycles in which follitropin alfa was used for the first stimulation and follitropin delta for the second showed a significantly smaller decline in oocyte yield compared to cycles that began with follitropin delta followed by follitropin alfa.
conclusionThe present study concluded that in non-polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) patients with an anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) level of ≤2.03 ng/mL - classified as intermediate responders - the use of follitropin delta (12 μg) in the second in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle resulted in a significantly smaller change in the number of retrieved oocytes compared to the first cycle. This suggests that the use of follitropin delta in the second cycle may be a viable and proactive option in such cases.
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.