Evidence mapPaperPMID 41006677Full record

ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2025

The role of luteinizing hormone in the management of female infertility: A French Delphi consensus.

Isabelle Cédrin-Durnerin, Julie Labrosse, Claire Castello Bridoux, Valérie de Buyst, Ségolène Paillet, Muriel Lubrano, Théo Cerceau, Stéphane Bouée, Bruno Salle, François Olivennes and 1 more

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

11 authors.

Isabelle Cédrin-DurnerinService de Médecine de la Reproduction et Préservation de la Fertilité, Hôpital Jean Verdier, Bondy, France. cedrinisabelle@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3166-8014
Julie LabrosseService de Médecine de la Reproduction, Hôpital Américain de Paris, Neuilly-Sur-Seine, France.
Claire Castello BridouxDépartement Des Affaires Médicales, Merck Serono SAS (an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany), Lyon, France.
Valérie de BuystDépartement Des Affaires Médicales, Merck Serono SAS (an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany), Lyon, France.
Ségolène PailletDépartement Des Affaires Médicales, Merck Serono SAS (an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany), Lyon, France.
Muriel LubranoDépartement Des Affaires Médicales, Merck Serono SAS (an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany), Lyon, France.
Théo CerceauRWE Department, CEMKA, Bourg La Reine, France.
Stéphane BouéeRWE Department, CEMKA, Bourg La Reine, France.
Bruno SalleService de Médecine de la Reproduction, Hôpital Femme-Mère-Enfant, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Bron, France.
François OlivennesService d'Assistance Médicale à la Procréation, Centre Hospitalier Privé Ambroise Paré-Hartmann, Paris, France.
Laetitia JacquessonCentre de Médecine de la Reproduction, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo clarify clinical practice with regard to LH requirements and identify patient profiles that could benefit from luteinizing hormone (LH)-follicle-stimulating hormone co-treatment.

methodsIn a Delphi survey, a scientific advisory board elaborated 28 statements on the role of luteinizing hormone (LH) in folliculogenesis (n = 7 statements), the utility of LH for follicular development prior to ovulation induction/intrauterine insemination protocols (n = 3), the utility of LH for follicular development prior to agonist or pretreated antagonist protocols in IVF (n = 6), the source and type of LH activity (n = 3), and patient profiles (n = 9). These statements were reviewed and clarified by two pilot experts. A panel of 26 French ART experts voted in two rounds. Full consensus and consensus were defined respectively as 100% and > 66% agreement. Statements could be reformulated between the two rounds of voting.

resultsA full consensus or a consensus was reached for 24 of the 28 statements. All the statements concerning the pathophysiological role of LH in folliculogenesis achieved a consensus. The experts endorsed the basic science and emphasized the need to consider inter-individual variability in the clinic. Recombinant human LH was considered to optimize outcomes in a range of patient profiles: a suboptimal ovarian response to IVF stimulation, desensitization following a long agonist protocol, advanced maternal age (> 35), polymorphisms, low body mass index, and women with hypogonadotropic hypogonadism.

conclusionsThis Delphi consensus from a representative group of French experts provided real-world guidance on LH's crucial importance in folliculogenesis and the patient profiles for which LH is beneficial.

Indexed as

Infertility, FemaleLuteinizing HormoneAdultDelphi TechniqueFemaleFertilization in VitroFollicle Stimulating HormoneFranceHumansOvarian FollicleOvulation InductionPregnancyFollicle Stimulating HormoneLuteinizing HormoneAssisted reproductive technologyDelphi consensusFolliculogenesisIVF stimulationOvarian responseR-hLH

Identifiers

PMID41006677
PMCPMC12705498

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.