ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Impact of COVID-19 infection on laboratory and clinical outcomes of ovarian stimulation using antagonist protocol.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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.
- COVID-19 and female reproductive health: pathophysiological mechanisms and clinical reproductive outcomes.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The COVID-19 profoundly impacted human reproduction, and provoked concerns regarding its potential influence on the assisted reproduction treatment outcomes. The current study designed to explore the impact of COVID-19 infection on the laboratory and clinical outcomes of patients who underwent controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) with antagonist protocol. Methods: This strictly self-controlled study included 134 patients who underwent repeated oocyte retrieval at the reproductive medicine center of International Peace Maternity and Child Health Hospital of China Welfare Institute between January 1, 2022 and December 31, 2023. Sixty six patients were contracted COVID-19 between their first and second COS cycles, and 68 patients were uninfected controls. We evaluated the laboratory outcomes, including oocyte yield and the rate of MII oocyte, fertilization, usable embryo, and high-quality embryo, through both inter-group (infected vs. non-infected) and intra-individual (before vs. after infection) comparisons. Results: The baseline characteristics were comparable between infection and non-infection groups. Ovarian reserve and response profiles demonstrated no statistically significant differences between the first and second COS cycles within either group. In the non-infection group, both the available and high-quality embryo rate showed significant improvement in the second COS cycle. In the infection group, although the blastocyst formation rate was significantly higher after COVID-19 infection ( Conclusion: Our data revealed that increased available and high-quality embryo rates seen in the non-infection group during second COS cycle were not observed in infected patients. Nonetheless, when comparing intra-individual, no detrimental effects on laboratory or clinical outcomes were found. This indicates that while COVID-19 appears to compromise the advantages of a repeat cycle, it does not worsen ovarian function.
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.