SynthesisArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2025
Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) in preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: a retrospective study and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInformation on the impact of Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol on embryo euploid status and preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) outcomes is limited compared with other ovarian stimulation protocols. We conducted a retrospective cohort study and a meta-analysis to evaluate the application value of the PPOS protocol in PGT-A cycles.
methodsIn the cohort study, we retrospectively analyzed 962 ovarian stimulation cycles, including 413 cycles of PPOS protocol, 327 cycles of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-ant) protocol, and 222 cycles of GnRH agonist (GnRH-a) protocol. In the meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Sinomed, CNKI, Wanfang and VIP databases as well as clinical trial registration websites. Pooled or narrative analyses were performed on embryo and pregnancy outcomes according to whether baseline characteristics were balanced.
resultsIn our retrospective study, compared to the GnRH agonist protocol, patients receiving the PPOS and GnRH antagonist protocols were older, and there was a significant decrease in the number of antral follicles, Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) levels, stimulation duration, gonadotropin (Gn) dosage, as well as the number of retrieved oocytes and euploid blastocysts. Regression analysis showed that the ovarian stimulation protocol was not associated with the number of euploid blastocysts or the rate of euploid blastocysts per biopsy. There were no significant differences in the rates of biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, premature birth, live birth, or miscarriage per embryo transfer among the three groups. The meta-analysis included data from seven studies. There were no significant differences in stimulation duration, Gn dosage, number of oocytes retrieved, number of euploid blastocysts, euploid blastocyst rate, clinical pregnancy rate, or live birth rate between PPOS protocol and GnRH antagonist protocol, but the abortion rate of PPOS protocol decreased significantly.
conclusionsCurrent findings indicate that the PPOS protocol is comparable to other ovarian stimulation protocols in embryo euploid status or pregnancy outcomes and may be an attractive option in PGT-A cycles, which needs to be validated in more well-designed RCTs and long-term follow-ups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.