Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41729769›Full record

SynthesisGynecologic and obstetric investigation2026

Comparative Effectiveness of Recombinant Human Follicle-Stimulating Hormone:Recombinant Human Luteinizing Hormone in a 2:1 Ratio versus Highly Purified Human Menopausal Gonadotropin Alone in Ovarian Stimulation for Medically Assisted Reproduction Treatment Using in vitro Fertilization/Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Michael H Dahan, Juan-Enrique Schwarze, Shiv Shanker Gupta, Brooke Hayward, Robert Fischer, Sandro C Esteves, Ming-Jer Chen, Kaylen M Silverberg, Luis Guzmán, Daniele Santi and 3 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Gynecologic and obstetric investigation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

13 authors.

Michael H DahanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, McGill University, Montreal, Québec, Canada, thedoctormichaeldahan@gmail.com.
Juan-Enrique SchwarzeMerck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.
Shiv Shanker GuptaMerck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.
Brooke HaywardHayward Ro Consulting, LLC, Ellicott City, Maryland, USA.
Robert FischerFertility Centre Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Sandro C EstevesANDROFERT - Andrology and Human Reproduction Clinic, Campinas, Brazil.
Ming-Jer ChenDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan.
Kaylen M SilverbergTexas Fertility Center, Austin, Texas, USA.
Luis GuzmánPranor Clinic, Lima, Peru.
Daniele SantiDepartment of Biomedical, Metabolic and Neural Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
Ido FeferkornDivision of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, MUHC Reproductive Center, McGill University, Montreal, Québec, Canada.
Thomas M D'HoogheMerck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.
Carlo AlviggiDepartment of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionInvestigation of the number of oocytes recovered from different ovarian stimulation (OS) protocols is essential, as oocyte number is positively associated with the number of good-quality embryos obtained; however, there are few data comparing the number of oocytes retrieved following OS with recombinant or urinary gonadotropins.

methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of published evidence was performed to compare the number of oocytes retrieved with recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone:recombinant human luteinizing hormone (r-hFSH:r-hLH) in a 2:1 ratio versus highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin (HP-hMG) alone from day 1 of OS. The literature search was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.prisma-statement.org/" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">https://www.prisma-statement.org/</ext-link>) using Medline, EMBASE, Biosis, SciSearch, and TOXCENTER on STN. Studies were included if they reported on r-hFSH:r-hLH in a 2:1 ratio versus HP-hMG alone, both administered from day 1 of OS, and the results for the number of oocytes retrieved were presented for both interventions. Data were extracted from the full articles independently by two reviewers (J.-E.S. and B.H.). Results were analyzed using a random-effects meta-analysis model. Any potential risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. Secondary outcomes were the number of mature (MII) oocytes, clinical pregnancy rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, and live birth rate.

resultsSix studies were included in the meta-analysis (5,287 cycles): four non-interventional studies, one non-interventional cross-over study, and one randomized controlled trial. The number of oocytes per cycle was significantly higher in women treated with r-hFSH:r-hLH 2:1 compared with those treated with HP-hMG alone (mean difference 1.43, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.18-2.69; p = 0.025). Clinical pregnancy rate per started cycle was significantly higher with r-hFSH:r-hLH 2:1 compared with HP-hMG (rate ratio 1.18, 95% CI: 1.06-1.33; p = 0.004; five studies). There were insufficient data to draw any firm conclusions on the other secondary outcomes.

conclusionsThe higher number of oocytes retrieved with r-hFSH:r-hLH is a pertinent finding, owing to the well-established positive association between oocyte number and reproductive outcomes. Although we report a higher clinical pregnancy rate for r-hFSH:r-hLH 2:1, limited data prevented us from drawing firm conclusions regarding live birth outcomes.

Indexed as

Clinical pregnancy rateHighly purified human menopausal gonadotropinMeta-analysisOocyte numberRecombinant human follicle-stimulating hormoneRecombinant human luteinizing hormoneSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID41729769
PMCPMC13065304

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.