ArticleTurkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology2026
Flexible progestin-primed ovarian stimulation is a safe and effective alternative to GnRH antagonist protocol in PGT-A cycles.
Article in Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To test the hypothesis that flexible progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (fPPOS) is non-inferior to the gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol in terms of safety and efficacy for patients undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation and preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A). Materials and Methods: This retrospective analysis included data from 548 cycles involving 367 women aged 35 to 45 years. The fPPOS and GnRH antagonist groups comprised 307 cycles (56%) and 241 cycles (44%), respectively. All participants underwent absolute blastocyst culture, trophectoderm biopsy, and PGT-A, with advanced maternal age as the sole indication. The primary outcomes were incidence of premature luteinizing hormone (LH) rise (>10 mIU/mL), cycle cancellation due to premature ovulation, and euploid blastocyst rate per injected metaphase II oocyte. Spearman's rho correlation and the generalized linear model (logit) were applied for statistical analysis. Results: The incidence of premature LH rise (8.2% versus 6.6%; p=0.302) and cycle cancellation due to premature ovulation (2% versus 0.4%; p=0.112) did not differ significantly between the fPPOS and GnRH antagonist groups. Maturation, fertilization, and blastulation rates were also similar (p>0.05). The euploid blastocyst rates per biopsy (50.12% versus 53.06%; p=0.317) and per injected metaphase II oocyte (23.84% versus 23.34%; p=0.231) were comparable between groups. Secondary outcomes, including rates of positive pregnancy tests, implantation, ongoing pregnancy, biochemical pregnancy losses, and early miscarriages, were also similar (p>0.05). Conclusion: The fPPOS protocol represents a viable alternative to the GnRH antagonist protocol for patients aged 35 years or older undergoing PGT-A.
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.