ArticleF&S reports2025
Progestin-suppressed in vitro fertilization cycles yield similar outcomes to traditional protocols in patients with diminished ovarian reserve.
Article in F&S reports, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of the progestin-suppressed in vitro fertilization (IVF) stimulation protocol in patients with diminished ovarian reserve. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Subjects: Women aged 18-45 years in an academic-affiliated private fertility practice with antimüllerian hormone values <1.2 ng/m undergoing autologous IVF cycles between January 2021 and December 2024. Exposure: Administration of 10 mg/day of oral medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) beginning on stimulation day 1, compared with standard gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist and microdose leuprolide flare protocols. Main Outcome Measures: Primary outcomes were ovulatory suppression and ongoing pregnancy rates. Secondary outcomes included cycle yields, logistical metrics, and medication costs. Results: A total of 669 patients (mean antimüllerian hormone 0.65 ± 0.3 ng/mL) were included. The MPA group (315 cycles) was compared with 353 non-MPA cycles (228 antagonist, 125 leuprolide flare). No premature ovulation occurred in the MPA group vs. five cases (1.4%) in the non-MPA group. Cycle length and medication dosage were similar; however, the MPA group required fewer monitoring visits (4.1 ± 0.9 vs. 5.1 ± 1.1) and had a higher number of mature oocytes retrieved (5.0 ± 3.2 vs. 4.3 ± 3.0). Blastocyst and euploid blastocyst yields were comparable between groups. Among preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy tested, frozen embryo transfers, rates of positive human chorionic gonadotropin (71.6% vs. 69.7%), ongoing pregnancy (60.8% vs. 64.6%), and miscarriage (5.5% vs. 4.0%) did not differ significantly. Patients in the MPA group saved an average of $453.53 ± $60.69 in medication costs and underwent 11.9 ± 3.4 fewer injections per cycle. In multivariable models, the treatment group was not associated with the likelihood of having an embryo available for transfer (odds ratio 1.26, 95% confidence interval 0.74-1.53) or clinical pregnancy (odds ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.50-1.95). Conclusion: The progestin-suppressed IVF protocol provides similar reproductive outcomes in patients with diminished ovarian reserve, with the advantages of fewer monitoring visits, reduced injections, and lower medication costs.
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.