ArticleJournal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association2026
Double stimulation in the same menstrual cycle (DuoStim): a comparative evaluation of follicular and luteal phase response.
Article in Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association, 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: Double ovarian stimulation (DuoStim) protocols, in which both follicular and luteal phase stimulations are performed within the same menstrual cycle, have emerged as a promising strategy for patients with diminished ovarian reserve. The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of follicular and luteal phase stimulations in patients undergoing DuoStim protocols. Material and Methods: This retrospective intra-patient paired comparative study included patients who underwent DuoStim between January 2018 and December 2024 at a university-based infertility clinic. Stimulation protocols, gonadotropin doses and trigger types were evaluated. Primary outcomes were retrieved oocyte and metaphase II (MII) oocyte numbers across both stimulation phases. Clinical pregnancy rates achieved by embryos derived separately from each stimulation phase were evaluated as a secondary outcome. Duration of stimulation, total gonadotropin doses administered, cumulative oocyte yield and embryos obtained, fertilization rates, implantation rates, and live birth rates were also assessed. Results: The study included 120 patients. Retrieved oocytes numbers [2 (1-3) and 2 (1-5) in follicular phase and luteal phase], MII oocytes [1 (1-2) and 2 (0-4)], and frozen cleavage stage embryos [1 (0-1) and 1 (0-2) in follicular phase and luteal phase] were higher in the luteal phase stimulation (p<0.001, p=0.001, and p=0.005 respectively). Oocyte yield, fertilization rates, implantation rates, and clinical pregnancy rates were similar between the two phases. Total gonadotropin doses and stimulation duration were significantly higher during follicular phase stimulation. Conclusion: In patients with diminished ovarian reserve undergoing DuoStim, luteal phase stimulation yielded significantly more retrieved oocytes and MII oocytes despite requiring lower gonadotropin doses and shorter stimulation duration. Fertilization rates, embryo development, and clinical pregnancy rates were comparable between phases, suggesting that luteal phase-derived embryos are equally competent. These findings support DuoStim as an effective strategy to maximize oocyte yield within a single menstrual cycle in this challenging population. Further prospective studies are warranted to evaluate cumulative reproductive outcomes.
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.