SynthesisInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics2026
Luteal phase stimulation versus follicular phase stimulation in poor ovarian responders: A systematic review and a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPoor ovarian response (POR) complicates a substantial proportion of in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles, frequently causing cycle cancellation and suboptimal reproductive outcomes. Conventional follicular-phase ovarian stimulation (FPOS) protocols often yield limited results, prompting the evaluation of alternative strategies such as luteal-phase ovarian stimulation (LPOS).
objectivesThis study assesses whether LPOS presents similar efficacy in terms of assisted reproductive technology (ART) outcomes compared with stimulation in the conventional follicular phase in women with POR according to Bologna criteria.
methodComprehensive electronic searches were performed up to July 2024 across MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, SCOPUS, LILACS, SciELO, CINAHL, PsycINFO, AMED, Clinicaltrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and Cochrane databases, with additional hand-searching of reference lists and gray literature. Inclusion criteria were comparative studies evaluating LPOS versus FPOS in poor ovarian responders undergoing IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Studies involving DuoStim protocols, lacking control groups, or with incomplete data were excluded. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessments (RoB 2 for randomized clinical trial (RCTs); ROBINS-I for observational studies) were conducted independently by multiple reviewers. Meta-analysis utilized random-effects models to generate pooled mean differences (MD) and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE methodology.
resultsFive studies (312 patients; 114 LPOS vs. 198 FPOS) met the inclusion criteria. LPOS resulted in a non-significant increase in cumulus-oocyte complexes retrieved (MD 0.56; 95% CI -0.12 to 1.23) and mature (MII) oocytes (MD 0.061; 95% CI -0.04 to 0.126), with moderate heterogeneity. The number of embryos reaching day 3 was significantly higher with LPOS (MD 0.77; 95% CI 0.29 to 1.25). No significant differences were found for clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.26; 95% CI 0.78 to 2.02), fertilization rate (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.20), pregnancy loss rate (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.27 to 3.43), or cancellation rate (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.34 to 2.30). Stimulation duration was significantly longer in LPOS, while total gonadotropin dose and serum estradiol on trigger day did not differ significantly. The overall certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low; therefore, findings should be interpreted as preliminary and might change as additional studies become available.
conclusionLuteal-phase ovarian stimulation appears to be an effective alternative to conventional FPOS for poor responders, demonstrating similar reproductive outcomes with possible quantitative benefits in embryo yield. However, the evidence is limited, and research is ongoing; therefore, results are pending and further large-scale randomized controlled trials are required to confirm these findings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: This review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (ID: CRD420251010075; registration date: 12/05/2025).
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.