ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2025
Gonadotropin dose selection for repeat IVF cycles in POSEIDON Groups 1 and 2.
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.
- A retrospective cohort study on the impact of gonadotropin dose on embryo quality and pregnancy outcome: identification of optimal dose range.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- A prospective study of non-invasive prenatal screening technology in preimplantation genetic testing cycles.Frontiers in medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Investigating whether increasing the dose of gonadotropins (Gn) in the second Methods: This retrospective study included 343 patients from POSEIDON Groups 1 and 2 who underwent two consecutive cycles of ovarian stimulation with an antagonist protocol between May 2018 and September 2022. Patients were divided into an Additive group (those who increased the Gn dosage in the second cycle) and a Control group (those who maintained or decreased the Gn dosage), with a 1:2 propensity score matching analysis. The primary outcome was the CLBR. Results: In the second IVF cycle, the Additive group had higher initial (191.8 vs 183.4, P=0.135) and total (2161.7 vs 1770.6, P=0.461) Gn doses compared to the Control group. The Additive group also had a higher average number of retrieved oocytes and Metaphase II (MII) oocytes, a higher two pronuclei (2PN) fertilization rate (3.3 vs 2.6, P=0.065), and higher blastocyst formation rates (44.9% vs 44.2%, P=0.937) compared to the Control group; however, these differences were not statistically significant. The Control group had a slightly higher CLBR (31.5% vs 28.9%, P=0.8), which was also not statistically significant. Conclusions: For POSEIDON Groups 1 and 2, increasing the dose of Gn under the antagonist protocol increased treatment costs but did not improve the CLBR. Routine increase of Gn dose was not recommended.
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.