ArticleJournal of ovarian research2025
Clinical outcomes following GnRH antagonist protocol change to PPOS protocol versus GnRH antagonist protocol in patients with pre-elevated progesterone: a propensity score matching study.
Article in Journal of ovarian research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Therapeutic perspective of postbiotics in managing health of women with polycystic ovarian syndrome: a holistic approach.Inflammopharmacology · 2025Review
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
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the impact of changing to the PPOS protocol in the population with a premature progesterone increase (≥ 0.9 ng/mL) from the antagonist protocol on the clinical outcomes.
methodsThe study was a retrospective cohort, propensity score-matched study on the clinical outcomes of patients changing from antagonist protocol to the PPOS protocol with a premature progesterone increase compared to patients consisted with the antagonist protocal.
resultsA total of 188 pairs (376 samples) were successfully matched through PSM matching (tolerance: 0.001) from January 2020 to December 2024. After adjusted by Generalized linear models, the number of retrieved oocytes in the antagonist-to-PPOS protocol is slightly lower (12.80 [12.29–13.13] vs. 13.59 [13.06–14.13], P = 0.03), the 2PN fertilized eggs, and available embryos were comparable between the antagonist-to-PPOS group and the antagonist group. The number of blastocysts (4.52 [4.18–4.89] vs. 3.73 [3.39–4.10], P = 0.002), the number of high-quality blastocysts per person(3.28 [2.98–3.63] vs. 2.45 [2.16–2.79], P<0.001), and the high-quality blastocysts rate (32.15 [28.36–35.94]% vs. 26.25 [22.44–30.05]%, P = 0.03) were higher in the antagonist-to-PPOS group. The clinical pregnancy rate in the first FET cycle, and in the completed FET cycles were comparable between the antagonist group and the antagonist-to-PPOS protocol groups. Through logistic regression analysis, the transition from the antagonist protocol to the PPOS protocol had no adverse influence on the clinical pregnancy rate.
conclusionSwitching from the antagonist protocol to the PPOS protocol in the population with elevated progesterone ≥ 0.9 ng/ml during the process of ovulation induction did not adversely affect clinical pregnancy rates, while showing improved blastocyst quality metrics.
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.