ArticleJournal of ovarian research2026
Comparing the clinical pregnancy outcomes of fresh embryo transfer in young patients with poor prognosis using different ovarian stimulation protocols.
Article in Journal of ovarian research, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the clinical pregnancy outcomes of fresh embryo transfer at the cleavage stage utilizing gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) and the antagonist protocols in young patients with poor prognosis.
methodsA retrospective cohort study was carried out on patients who underwent in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) between January 2016 and July 2024. Women under 35 years old with anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels < 1.2 ng/ml in fresh cycles were included. A total of 1,732 cycles using the GnRH-a protocol and 3,168 cycles utilizing the antagonist protocol were investigated. The two groups were compared based on their baseline characteristics, clinical and embryological laboratory parameters, and outcome indicators. To compare the clinical results of the two stimulation protocols, we employed propensity score matching (PSM, 1:1) and multivariate logistic regression.
resultsAfter PSM (1:1) with a tolerance of 0.01, the number of cycles in the two groups was 1422 each.The GnRH-a group had a higher clinical pregnancy rate (55.01%, P = 0.003) and live birth rate (41.66%, P < 0.001) than the antagonist group (clinical pregnancy rate: 47.67%; live birth rate: 31.74%). Ectopic pregnancy, early miscarriage, preterm birth, and the number of live births did not differ significantly (P > 0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the clinical pregnancy rate in the GnRH-a group (OR = 1.25,95%CI:1.02, 1.52) was 1.25 times higher than that in the antagonist group (P = 0.0297), and the live birth rate(OR = 1.38,95%CI:1.12, 1.71) was 1.38 times higher (P = 0.0025). Additionally, compared to the antagonist group (transfer cancellation rate: 45.71%; total embryo freezing: 31.58%), the GnRH-a group exhibited reduced rates of fresh cycle transfer cancellation (34.67%; P < 0.001) and total embryo freezing (22.01%; P < 0.001). The rates of oocyte retrieval cancellation, oocyte retrieval failure, and the lack of usable embryos did not differ significantly between the two groups (P > 0.05).
conclusionIn young patients with poor prognosis, the GnRH-a protocol for controlled ovarian stimulation in fresh embryo transfer cycles produces higher clinical pregnancy and live birth rates, as well as a lower fresh transfer cancellation rate, as compared to the antagonist protocol.
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.