Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35140685›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2021

Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation Versus Mild Stimulation Protocol in Advanced Age Women With Diminished Ovarian Reserve Undergoing Their First

Xiaoyu Tu, Bingbing You, Miaomiao Jing, Chenxi Lin, Runju Zhang

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Xiaoyu TuKey Laboratory of Reproductive Genetics (Ministry of Education), Department of Reproductive Endocrinology, Women's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Bingbing YouKey Laboratory of Reproductive Genetics (Ministry of Education), Department of Reproductive Endocrinology, Women's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Miaomiao JingKey Laboratory of Reproductive Genetics (Ministry of Education), Department of Reproductive Endocrinology, Women's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Chenxi LinKey Laboratory of Reproductive Genetics (Ministry of Education), Department of Reproductive Endocrinology, Women's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Runju ZhangKey Laboratory of Reproductive Genetics (Ministry of Education), Department of Reproductive Endocrinology, Women's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Women's Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To assess and compare the feasibility of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol with mild stimulation protocol for advanced age women with diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) undergoing their first Methods: Patients aged ≥35 years and DOR undergoing their first IVF/ICSI cycle were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study: 139 and 600 patients underwent the PPOS and mild stimulation protocols, respectively. The primary outcomes were cumulative clinical pregnancy rate (CCPR) and cumulative live birth rate (CLBR). The secondary outcomes were the number of oocytes retrieved and top-quality embryos. Results: There was nearly no significant difference of baseline characteristics between the two groups. Although a greater amount of total gonadotropin (1906.61 ± 631.04 IU vs. 997.72 ± 705.73 IU, Conclusion: The PPOS protocol is an effective alternative to the mild stimulation protocol for advanced age patients with DOR, as it provides comparable reproductive outcomes and better control of premature LH surge. Further, more oocytes and top-quality embryos were obtained in the PPOS group, which had a positive association with conservative CCPR and CLBR.

Indexed as

Fertilization in VitroLive BirthMaternal AgeOvarian ReservePregnancy RateAdultChorionic GonadotropinClomipheneCohort StudiesDydrogesteroneFemaleFertility Agents, FemaleHumansLetrozoleMedroxyprogesterone AcetateMenotropinsChorionic GonadotropinClomipheneDydrogesteroneFertility Agents, FemaleLetrozoleMedroxyprogesterone AcetateMenotropinsProgestinsTriptorelin Pamoateadvanced agecumulative clinical pregnancy ratecumulative live birth ratediminished ovarian reservemild stimulationprogestin-primed ovarian stimulation

Identifiers

PMID35140685
PMCPMC8818948
OpenAlexW4210278387

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.