ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2025
GnRH agonist trigger in focus: does protocol choice between PPOS and antagonist strategies affect outcomes?
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 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.
- Evaluating progestin-primed and GnRH antagonist ovarian stimulation protocols in PGT-A cycles: implications for clinical practice.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Impact of GnRH antagonist protocols versus progestin-primed ovarian stimulation on reproductive outcomes in advanced reproductive age women: a propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study.Frontiers 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of the GnRHa trigger in the PPOS and GnRH antagonist protocols when using a GnRH agonist (GnRHa) trigger.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study conducted at Bahçeci Fulya IVF Center (January 2022-January 2024) included 802 patients undergoing ovarian stimulation with a starting dose of 300 IU gonadotropins using either a GnRH antagonist (n = 372) or PPOS protocol (n = 430), followed by a GnRHa trigger. The primary outcome was oocyte yield; secondary outcomes included pregnancy rates following the initial frozen embryo transfer (FET).
resultsBaseline characteristics, including female age, BMI, and infertility duration, were comparable between groups. Although PPOS was associated with a shorter stimulation duration [10 (9-11) vs. 10 (10-11) days, p = 0.002], lower progesterone levels on trigger day [1.3 (0.74-1.48) vs. 1.5 (0.83-1.63) ng/ml, p = 0.002], and higher LH levels [4 (1.89-5.2) vs. 3.3 (1.4-4.1) IU, p < 0.001], oocyte yield and embryological outcomes were similar (p > 0.05 for all). Clinical pregnancy rates [63.6% vs. 63.8%, p = 0.95] and live birth rates [51.7% vs. 52.2%, p = 0.87] were also comparable. Regression analysis identified embryo quality (p = 0.003), but not stimulation protocol (p = 0.766), as a significant predictor of live birth.
conclusionPPOS and GnRH antagonist protocols provide similar oocyte yield and live birth rates following GnRHa trigger. These findings indicate that progestin use in PPOS is not associated with inferior clinical outcomes in the setting of GnRHa trigger; however, the underlying mechanisms and long-term efficacy require further investigations.
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.