ArticleF&S reports2025
Comparable Clinical and Embryological Outcomes in Luteal and Follicular Phase Controlled Ovarian Hyperstimulation: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in F&S reports, 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
Objective: To study whether luteal phase stimulation provides clinical and embryological outcomes comparable to follicular phase stimulation in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation cycles. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Subjects: A total of 12,442 patients undergoing 18,062 in vitro fertilization cycles between January 1, 2018, and December 21, 2021, across 6 assisted reproductive technology centers within a large US fertility network. Exposure: Patients underwent controlled ovarian hyperstimulation using either follicular phase or luteal phase initiation. Cycles involving fresh transfers, day 3 transfers, or poor endometrial receptivity were excluded. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rates and cumulative live birth rates. The secondary outcomes included the number of oocytes retrieved, oocyte maturation rate, fertilization rate, blastocyst biopsy rate, and euploid embryo rate. Results: The clinical pregnancy rates were similar between follicular (68.44%) and luteal (67.67%) phase stimulations (odds ratio, 0.975; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.751-1.266). Luteal phase stimulation required a higher total follicle-stimulating hormone dose (4,350.92 IU vs. 3,989.11 IU); however, stimulation duration did not differ significantly. Follicular phase stimulation yielded more oocytes on average (12.61 vs. 11.85), although luteal phase stimulation produced more oocytes in paired analyses (8.54 vs. 7.31). Among patients aged <35 years, the blastocyst biopsy rates were higher in luteal cycles (61.01% vs. 55.37%). No significant differences were found in the oocyte maturation, fertilization, or euploid embryo rates. The cumulative live birth rates were comparable across age groups and transfer attempts. Conclusion: Luteal phase stimulation offers clinical and embryological outcomes comparable to follicular phase stimulation in in vitro fertilization. In patients aged <35 years, it may provide higher blastocyst biopsy rates, supporting its use as a flexible and effective stimulation option.
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.