ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2026
A retrospective cohort study comparing controlled ovarian stimulation protocols for IVF/ICSI in women with endometriosis and diminished ovarian reserve.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Assisted reproductive treatment for women with endometriosis and diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) is challenging, and the optimal controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) protocol for this population remains uncertain. This study compared four commonly used COS regimens for IVF/ICSI in women with EM and DOR. Methods: In this retrospective cohort (2014-2023), 859 IVF/ICSI cycles in women aged 40 years or younger with EM and DOR were allocated to four COS protocols (ultra-long, long, short, antagonist). The primary outcomes were cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) and live birth rate (LBR) per started cycle; clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) was secondary. Between-protocol differences were assessed using multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for age, infertility duration, history of endometrioma cystectomy, basal FSH, LH, E2, AMH, antral follicle count, BMI, and COS protocol, with additional stabilized inverse-probability-weighting and 1:1:1:1 propensity score matching used to address confounding by indication. Results: The analysis included a total of 859 cycles, which were allocated into four treatment groups: the short protocol (n=295), the long protocol (n=145), the ultra-long protocol (n=202), and the antagonist protocol (n=217). Among these, the ultra-long protocol yielded the highest CLBR of 48.5%, LBR of 36.6%, and CPR of 41.1%. After PSM, the advantage difference of the ultra-long protocol is more significant. A subsequent multivariable logistic regression analysis confirmed that the ultra-long protocol was significantly more effective for achieving a live birth than the other protocols in the study: long protocol (OR: 0.577, P = 0.042), short protocol (OR: 0.608, P = 0.028), and antagonist protocol (OR: 0.486, P = 0.004). Similarly, the short (OR: 0.559, P = 0.010) and antagonist (OR: 0.484, P = 0.004) protocols were less effective for CPR. Conclusion: For infertile women aged 40 years or younger with endometriosis and DOR undergoing fresh embryo transfers, the ultra-long protocol appears to be more beneficial than the long, short, and antagonist protocols in terms of cumulative live birth, live birth, and clinical pregnancy rates.
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.