ArticleJournal of ovarian research2025
Comparison of efficacy, safety, and economy of recombinant and urinary follicle-stimulating hormone in women with a predicted normal response undergoing assisted reproductive technology.
Article in Journal of ovarian research, 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
backgroundThe administration of exogenous gonadotropins (Gn) to elicit multi-follicular development for controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) represents a pivotal component of assisted reproductive technology (ART). Presently, the exogenous Gn preparations most frequently utilized are recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) and urinary follicle-stimulating hormone (uFSH). Given the contentious results from previous studies, it is imperative to conduct a comprehensive assessment of their efficacy, safety, and economy.
methodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted from January 2017 to December 2021, encompassing 3,966 women with a predicted normal response who underwent ART treatment. These patients were stratified into two groups based on the type of exogenous Gn administered: the rFSH group (N = 1,785) and the uFSH group (N = 2,181). Propensity score matching (PSM) and Cox proportional hazards model were utilized to control potential confounders. The primary evaluation indicators for efficacy, safety, and economy were the cumulative delivery rate (CDR) per initiated cycle, the incidence of moderate-to-severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), and the cost of controlled ovarian stimulation (COS), respectively. After matching all baseline characteristics, each group retained 1,133 cycles, with the baseline characteristics between the two groups being comparable.
resultsOur results showed that the uFSH group exhibited a higher Gn starting dose, total Gn dose, and a longer stimulation duration compared to the rFSH group after PSM. Conversely, the rFSH group had a higher number of ≧ 14 mm follicles on trigger day, oocytes retrieved, and transferable embryos. There were no significant differences in the live birth rate for both fresh embryo transfer (50.3% vs. 51.7%) and frozen embryo transfer (44.2% vs. 42.5%) between rFSH and uFSH group. CDR were also comparable (56.1% vs. 55.0%), with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.98 (95% confidence interval: 0.88-1.09). The incidence of moderate-to-severe OHSS was also similar in both groups (1.0% vs. 0.6%). However, the rFSH group incurred significantly higher costs of COS (RMB, 8947.6 ± 1888.0 vs. 5958.0 ± 1057.4; P < 0.001).
conclusionsIn women with a predicted normal response undergoing ART treatment, rFSH and uFSH result in similar CDR and incidence of moderate-to-severe OHSS. However, the rFSH leads to a higher cost of COS.
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.