Trial reportReproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.)2026
Impact of Vitamin D Supplementation on IVF Outcomes in Vitamin D-Deficient Poor Responders: a Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the effect of vitamin D supplementation on in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes in poor responder women with vitamin D deficiency, focusing on fertilization rates, oocyte quality, and pregnancy rates.
methodsA randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at a tertiary referral center (February 2022–2024). Seventy poor responder women (POSEIDON groups 3–4) with serum vitamin D levels < 30 ng/mL were randomized to receive either weekly 50,000 IU vitamin D (n = 33) or placebo (n = 35) for 6–8 weeks before IVF. Both groups underwent a GnRH-antagonist protocol. Primary outcomes included fertilization rate (2PN oocytes) and oocyte maturity (germinal vesicle (GV), metaphase I (MI), and metaphase II (MII) stages). Secondary outcomes were chemical pregnancy rate (β-hCG > 50 IU/L), follicular fluid vitamin D levels, and embryo quality. Data were analyzed via Intention-to-Treat (ITT) and per-protocol approaches using SPSS v21.
resultsBaseline characteristics (age, BMI, AMH, infertility duration) were comparable between groups (p > 0.05). Post-intervention, serum vitamin D levels were significantly higher in the supplementation group (40.95 ± 15.22 ng/mL vs. 25.07 ± 7.45 ng/mL, p < 0.001), but follicular fluid levels did not differ significantly (33.57 ± 23.59 vs. 25.49 ± 21.23 ng/mL, p = 0.12). IVF outcomes showed no significant differences in fertilization rate (0.50 ± 0.47 vs. 0.80 ± 1.66, p = 0.38), oocyte maturity, or embryo transfer cancellation rates (69.7% vs. 68.6%, p = 0.72). Both groups ' chemical pregnancy rates were similarly low (3.0% vs. 5.7%, p = 0.72). Per-protocol analysis yielded consistent results.
conclusionVitamin D supplementation did not improve IVF outcomes in poor responders despite significantly increasing serum vitamin D levels. The lack of effect may reflect insufficient ovarian uptake of vitamin D or the inherently low prognosis of this population. Routine supplementation for IVF success in poor responders is not supported, though monitoring deficiency remains important for general health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41413681What 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.