Evidence mapPaperPMID 39707165Full record

SynthesisHuman reproduction update2025

Development and validation of a gonadotropin dose selection model for optimized ovarian stimulation in IVF/ICSI: an individual participant data meta-analysis.

Nienke Schouten, Rui Wang, Helen Torrance, Theodora Van Tilborg, Ercan Bastu, Christina Bergh, Thomas D'Hooghe, Jesper Friis Petersen, Kannamannadiar Jayaprakasan, Yacoub Khalaf and 13 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic ReviewValidation Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Human reproduction update, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

23 authors.

Nienke SchoutenDivision Woman and Baby, Reproductive Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1709-5611
Rui WangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash Medical Centre, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6622-8134
Helen TorranceDivision Woman and Baby, Reproductive Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Theodora Van TilborgDivision Woman and Baby, Reproductive Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Ercan BastuAcibadem University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Istanbul University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0003-0810-6195
Christina BerghDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-6049-7731
Thomas D'HoogheGlobal Medical Affairs, Research and Development, Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2373-8257
Jesper Friis PetersenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, North Zealand Hospital, Hilleroed, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-5619-1809
Kannamannadiar JayaprakasanRoyal Derby Hospital, Derby & University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Yacoub KhalafAssisted Conception Unit, Guy's & St Thomas's Hospital, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5642-7367
Ellen KlinkertDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Antonio La MarcaDepartment of Obstetrics Gynaecology and Paediatric Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-7921-9547
Lan VuongDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy at Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.ORCID 0000-0001-6529-6912
Louise LapenséeReproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Clinique ovo, Montréal, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9995-870X
Sarah LensenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Royal Women's Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1694-1142
Åsa MagnussonDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-2548-1114
Adolfo AllegraReproductive Medicine Unit, ANDROS Day Surgery Clinic, Palermo, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9942-7810
Anders Nyboe AndersenThe Fertility Department, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Simone OudshoornDivision Woman and Baby, Reproductive Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1385-1966
Biljana Popovic-TodorovicCenter for Reproductive Medicine, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Ben Willem MolDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash Medical Centre, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8337-550X
Marinus EijkemansDivision Woman and Baby, Reproductive Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9400-0615
Frank BroekmansDivision Woman and Baby, Reproductive Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1366-2727

Funding

Merck B.V.National Health and Medical Research Council 2009767Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development 848101001NHMRC GNT1176437The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development 848101001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe ovarian response to gonadotropin stimulation varies widely among women, and could impact the probability of live birth as well as treatment risks. Many studies have evaluated the impact of different gonadotropin starting doses, mainly based on predictive variables like ovarian reserve tests (ORT) including anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), antral follicle count (AFC), and basal follicle-stimulating hormone (bFSH). A Cochrane systematic review revealed that individualizing the gonadotropin starting dose does not affect efficacy in terms of ongoing pregnancy/live birth rates, but may reduce treatment risks such as the development of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). An individual patient data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) offers a unique opportunity to develop and validate a universal prediction model to help choose the optimal gonadotropin starting dose to minimize treatment risks without affecting efficacy. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: The objective of this IPD-MA is to develop and validate a gonadotropin dose-selection model to guide the choice of a gonadotropin starting dose in IVF/ICSI, with the purpose of minimizing treatment risks without compromising live birth rates. SEARCH

methodsElectronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CRSO were searched to identify eligible studies. The last search was performed on 13 July 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included if they compared different doses of gonadotropins in women undergoing IVF/ICSI, presented at least one type of ORT, and reported on live birth or ongoing pregnancy. Authors of eligible studies were contacted to share their individual participant data (IPD). IPD and information within publications were used to determine the risk of bias. Generalized linear mixed multilevel models were applied for predictor selection and model development. OUTCOMES: A total of 14 RCTs with data of 3455 participants were included. After extensive modeling, women aged 39 years and over were excluded, which resulted in the definitive inclusion of 2907 women. The optimal prediction model for live birth included six predictors: age, gonadotropin starting dose, body mass index, AFC, IVF/ICSI, and AMH. This model had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.557 (95% confidence interval (CI) from 0.536 to 0.577). The clinically feasible live birth model included age, starting dose, and AMH and had an AUC of 0.554 (95% CI from 0.530 to 0.578). Two models were selected as the optimal model for combined treatment risk, as their performance was equal. One included age, starting dose, AMH, and bFSH; the other also included gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analog. The AUCs for both models were 0.769 (95% CI from 0.729 to 0.809). The clinically feasible model for combined treatment risk included age, starting dose, AMH, and GnRH analog, and had an AUC of 0.748 (95% CI from 0.709 to 0.787). WIDER IMPLICATIONS: The aim of this study was to create a model including patient characteristics whereby gonadotropin starting dose was predictive of both live birth and treatment risks. The model performed poorly on predicting live birth by modifying the FSH starting dose. On the contrary, predicting treatment risks in terms of OHSS occurrence and management by modifying the gonadotropin starting dose was adequate. This dose-selection model, consisting of easily obtainable patient characteristics, aids in the choice of the optimal gonadotropin starting dose for each individual patient to lower treatment risks and potentially reduce treatment costs.

Indexed as

Fertilization in VitroGonadotropinsOvulation InductionSperm Injections, IntracytoplasmicAdultAnti-Mullerian HormoneDose-Response Relationship, DrugFemaleHumansLive BirthOvarian Hyperstimulation SyndromeOvarian ReservePregnancyPregnancy RateAnti-Mullerian HormoneGonadotropinsgonadotropin starting doseindividualized dosingIPD-MAovarian stimulationprediction model

Identifiers

PMID39707165
PMCPMC11879166

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.