ArticleInternational journal of women's health2025
Protocol-Specific Outcomes of GnRH Agonist Use in Luteal Phase Support During Frozen Embryo Transfer Cycles.
Article in International journal of women's health, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Recent data comparing natural cycles and artificial cycles in frozen embryo transfer (FET) showed an equivalent LBR when optimized luteal phase support (LPS) was used. Of the suggested methods is the use of GnRH agonists as part of LPS. We aim to study whether the addition of GnRH agonists as LPS in FET cycles increases the live birth rate (LBR) and decreases the miscarriage rate (MR). Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed for 140 FET cycles, which were divided into two groups. The study group in which a GnRH agonist was used (AG) at the time of embryo transfer included 66 cycles, whereas the control group (NAG) included 74 cycles in which the use of GnRH agonist was not described. Results: The implantation rate was greater in the AG (69/112 (61.6%) vs 60/124 (48.4%), p= 0.0413). The LBR was greater in the AG than in the CG but did not reach statistical significance (40/66 (60.6%) vs 35/74 (47.3%), p= 0.114). The MR was similar between the 2 groups (6/66 (10%) vs 5/74 (6.7%), p= 0.61). The subanalysis per FET protocol revealed that there was no difference in the LBR between the AG-medicated and NAG-medicated cycles (15/34 (44.62%) vs (36/65 (55.38%), p=0.1984) or between the AG-ovulation induction and NAG-ovulation induction FET cycles (21/32 (65.63%) vs 6/9 (66.67%), p=0.1985). Conclusion: The use of a GnRH agonist as an add-on for LPS in FET cycles numerically increased the LBR without reaching statistical significance despite significantly improving the implantation rate. MR were not affected. This potential beneficial effect was comparable between the artificial and ovulation-induction FET cycles.
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.