ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2025
A comparative analysis of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation versus GnRH antagonists protocols pertaining to stimulation parameters and embryological outcomes in patients with endometrioma.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Development and validation of a clinical nomogram for predicting cumulative live birth rate in ovarian endometrioma patients undergoing ethanol sclerotherapy andFrontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Research question: Do embryo parameters and live birth rates differ between patients with endometrioma undergoing a freeze-all strategy using either GnRH antagonists or progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS)? Design: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at Bahceci Health Group from January 2021 to January 2023. Inclusion criteria were females aged 20-40 with confirmed endometriosis, using either GnRH antagonists or PPOS ovarian stimulation, and opting for freezing all embryos without fresh embryo transfer (ET). A total of 543 patients were analyzed, with the primary outcome being usable embryos at cleavage stage and secondary outcomes including distribution of embryo quality, clinical pregnancy, and live birth rate. Results: For the GnRH antagonist arm, the median (25th-75th percentiles) total gonadotropin dose required during stimulation was significantly higher (2725 [2100-3587.5] vs. 2400 [2050-3075] IU, p = 0.001) and duration was longer (11 [10-12] vs. 10 [9-11] days, p = 0.01), although number of mature oocytes and maturation and fertilization rates were similar in both arms. However, the linear regression analysis revealed that the number of usable day-three embryos was higher with the PPOS protocol than with the GnRH antagonist protocol (OR: 0.890, CI 95%: 0.226 - 1.554, p= 0.009). Particularly in patients that had undergone FET, the respective live birth rates were 50.0% and 54.6% in GnRH antagonist and PPOS arms, respectively, without any statistical significance (p= 0.365). Conclusion: In patients with endometrioma, the PPOS protocol over GnRH antagonists might potentially enhance the quantity of usable cleavage-stage embryos while showing no significant impact on the number of collected oocytes.
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.