ArticleInternational journal of reproductive biomedicine2026
Stop gonadotropin-releasing hormone-agonist protocol not superior to antagonist protocol on the outcomes of assisted reproductive techniques in poor responders: A randomized clinical trial.
Article in International journal of reproductive biomedicine, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Poor ovarian response remains one of the most challenging problems in assisted reproductive technology. Various stimulation protocols have been proposed to improve outcomes, including combined gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist and antagonist strategies. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of a stop GnRH-agonist protocol combined with a GnRH-antagonist protocol vs. a standard GnRH-antagonist protocol in poor ovarian responder (POR) cases. Materials and Methods: This randomized clinical trial was conducted on 100 women aged 18-44 yr diagnosed as POR according to the Bologna criteria. Participants were randomly allocated to either a GnRH-antagonist protocol (control group) or a combined Stop GnRH-agonist/GnRH-antagonist protocol (intervention group). The primary outcome was the clinical pregnancy rate. Secondary outcomes included the number of retrieved oocytes, embryo quality, chemical pregnancy, and live birth rate. Results: No statistically significant differences were observed between the 2 groups regarding chemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, or live birth rates. Laboratory outcomes, including the number of retrieved oocytes, metaphase II oocytes, and embryo quality, were also comparable. The intervention group required a significantly higher gonadotropin dose and had a longer stimulation duration (p Conclusion: The stop GnRH-agonist protocol did not demonstrate superiority over the GnRH-antagonist protocol in terms of laboratory or clinical outcomes in POR cases.
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.