ReviewJournal of reproduction & infertility
Combined Progesterone Administration Versus Single-Route Administration for Luteal Phase Support in IVF: A Narrative Review of Current Evidence.
Review in Journal of reproduction & infertility. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Luteal phase support (LPS) with progesterone is essential for successful implantation and early pregnancy maintenance in IVF cycles. Although various administration routes exist (oral, vaginal, intramuscular, subcutaneous), the comparative effectiveness of combined (dual or triple) versus single-route progesterone regimens remains uncertain due to limited high-quality randomized controlled trials. Methods: A narrative review was conducted to evaluate studies comparing pregnancy outcomes in IVF cycles using combined versus single-route progesterone administration for LPS. A comprehensive literature search was performed to identify retrospective, prospective, and randomized controlled studies published in peer-reviewed journals. Data regarding clinical pregnancy, live birth, miscarriage, and implantation rates were collected and synthesized narratively due to heterogeneity among included studies. Results: Most studies did not demonstrate statistically significant differences in outcomes between single-route and combined progesterone regimens, particularly when dydrogesterone was included. However, certain combinations, especially those involving oral dydrogesterone alongside vaginal or intramuscular progesterone, were associated with improved live birth and clinical pregnancy rates. Despite these encouraging findings, the lack of adequately powered RCTs and the methodological variability among studies limit the generalizability of the results. Conclusion: While single-route progesterone administration remains effective for luteal phase support in IVF cycles, emerging evidence suggests that individualized combined regimens may enhance pregnancy outcomes. The physiological rationale for combined administration, offering both systemic and local endometrial support, is compelling. Further well-designed randomized controlled trials with standardized protocols are necessary to establish evidence-based guidelines for optimal LPS.
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.