ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2026
Ovulation induction versus artificial cycles in polycystic ovary syndrome: higher live birth rate but elevated gestational diabetes risk.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPolycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a common endocrine disorder associated with infertility, and frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) has become a mainstream assisted reproductive technology for PCOS patients. Two primary endometrial preparation protocols are widely used for FET: ovulation induction cycles and artificial cycles (AC). However, the comparative clinical efficacy, maternal outcomes, and perinatal outcomes of these two protocols in PCOS women remain inconsistent in existing literature, highlighting the need for large-scale cohort studies to provide evidence-based guidance. This study aimed to investigate whether clinical, maternal, and perinatal outcomes following FET differ between ovulation induction cycles and artificial cycles in women with PCOS.
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study conducted at a public fertility center in China. A total of 3,255 PCOS women who underwent FET between January 2018 and December 2023 were included. After propensity score matching (1:1), 530 patients in the ovulation induction group were compared with 530 patients in the artificial cycle group. The primary outcome was live birth rate. Secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, maternal outcomes, and perinatal outcomes.
resultsAfter PSM, the ovulation induction group exhibited a significantly higher live birth rate than the artificial cycle group (57.5% vs. 51.3%; odds ratio [OR] 1.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0-1.7). The ovulation induction group also had a lower miscarriage rate (11.1% vs. 15.8%; OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.4-0.9). Regarding maternal outcomes, the ovulation induction group was associated with a significantly elevated risk of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) (17.6% vs. 9.0%; OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.4-3.4; P < 0.01). In singleton pregnancies, the ovulation induction group showed a reduced risk of large for gestational age (LGA) infants compared to the artificial cycle group (22.7% vs. 36.9%; OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-0.7; P < 0.01).
conclusionsWithin the limitations of a retrospective design and single-center setting, this study shows that in PCOS women undergoing FET, ovulation induction cycles were associated with higher live birth rates and lower risks of miscarriage and LGA infants in singleton pregnancies. However, this protocol is associated with an increased risk of GDM. These findings provide valuable evidence for individualizing endometrial preparation protocols in PCOS patients undergoing FET, balancing efficacy and maternal safety.
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.