-
BMC Medicine Oct 2022Hormonal changes during the menstrual cycle play a key role in shaping immunity in the cervicovaginal tract. Cervicovaginal fluid contains cytokines, chemokines,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Hormonal changes during the menstrual cycle play a key role in shaping immunity in the cervicovaginal tract. Cervicovaginal fluid contains cytokines, chemokines, immunoglobulins, and other immune mediators. Many studies have shown that the concentrations of these immune mediators change throughout the menstrual cycle, but the studies have often shown inconsistent results. Our understanding of immunological correlates of the menstrual cycle remains limited and could be improved by meta-analysis of the available evidence.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of cervicovaginal immune mediator concentrations throughout the menstrual cycle using individual participant data. Study eligibility included strict definitions of the cycle phase (by progesterone or days since the last menstrual period) and no use of hormonal contraception or intrauterine devices. We performed random-effects meta-analyses using inverse-variance pooling to estimate concentration differences between the follicular and luteal phases. In addition, we performed a new laboratory study, measuring select immune mediators in cervicovaginal lavage samples.
RESULTS
We screened 1570 abstracts and identified 71 eligible studies. We analyzed data from 31 studies, encompassing 39,589 concentration measurements of 77 immune mediators made on 2112 samples from 871 participants. Meta-analyses were performed on 53 immune mediators. Antibodies, CC-type chemokines, MMPs, IL-6, IL-16, IL-1RA, G-CSF, GNLY, and ICAM1 were lower in the luteal phase than the follicular phase. Only IL-1α, HBD-2, and HBD-3 were elevated in the luteal phase. There was minimal change between the phases for CXCL8, 9, and 10, interferons, TNF, SLPI, elafin, lysozyme, lactoferrin, and interleukins 1β, 2, 10, 12, 13, and 17A. The GRADE strength of evidence was moderate to high for all immune mediators listed here.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the variability of cervicovaginal immune mediator measurements, our meta-analyses show clear and consistent changes during the menstrual cycle. Many immune mediators were lower in the luteal phase, including chemokines, antibodies, matrix metalloproteinases, and several interleukins. Only interleukin-1α and beta-defensins were higher in the luteal phase. These cyclical differences may have consequences for immunity, susceptibility to infection, and fertility. Our study emphasizes the need to control for the effect of the menstrual cycle on immune mediators in future studies.
Topics: Elafin; Female; Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor; Humans; Immunoglobulins; Immunologic Factors; Interferons; Interleukin 1 Receptor Antagonist Protein; Interleukin-16; Interleukin-1alpha; Interleukin-6; Interleukins; Lactoferrin; Menstrual Cycle; Muramidase; Progesterone; beta-Defensins
PubMed: 36195867
DOI: 10.1186/s12916-022-02532-9 -
American Journal of Obstetrics and... Aug 2015This systematic literature review was conducted to summarize the direct and indirect costs per patient that are associated with uterine fibroid tumors in international... (Review)
Review
This systematic literature review was conducted to summarize the direct and indirect costs per patient that are associated with uterine fibroid tumors in international studies. A search with predefined search terms was conducted in MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies that were published from January 2000 to November 2013. The review included primary studies that were in English and that reported either direct costs (drug costs, procedure costs, and medical service costs) or indirect costs (such as productivity loss) among patients with uterine fibroid tumors. A total of 26 studies that were identified and included in the data extraction included 19 studies in the United States, 2 studies in the Netherlands, 1 study each in Germany, China, Italy, and Canada, and 1 study reported data that were collected from 3 countries: Germany, France, and England. The studies differed substantially in perspectives that were adopted for analysis, research designs, data elements that were collected, setting, populations, and outcome measurements. Among 3 studies that reported total direct costs during the year after uterine fibroid tumor diagnosis, 2 studies reported an average of $9473 and $9319 per patient, respectively; 2 studies reported the excess costs over controls to be $6076 and $5427, respectively. The indirect costs per patient ranged from $2399-15,549, and the excess indirect cost per patient over control groups ranged from $323-4824 in the year after the diagnosis. The total costs, sum of direct and indirect costs, ranged from $11,717-25,023 per patient per year, after diagnosis or surgery among patients with uterine fibroid tumors. Compared with control subjects, the additional annual cost ranged from $2200-15,952 per patient. The results of this systematic literature review highlight the substantial direct and indirect costs that are associated with uterine fibroid tumors to health care payers and society. The large number and the variety of studies identified also emphasize the growing awareness of the significant economic impact of uterine fibroid tumors. Current gaps that were identified through this review warrant further investigation to elucidate fully the economic burden of uterine fibroid tumors, including, but not limited to, burden from the patient's perspective and the entirety of indirect costs.
Topics: Contraceptives, Oral, Combined; Cost of Illness; Drug Costs; Efficiency; Female; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Health Care Costs; Humans; Hysterectomy; Leiomyoma; Progestins; Uterine Myomectomy; Uterine Neoplasms
PubMed: 25771213
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.03.019 -
European Journal of Obstetrics,... Jan 2009The aim of this paper is to identify reviews of interventions for preventing and treating preterm birth so that these could be appraised and the findings from good... (Review)
Review
The aim of this paper is to identify reviews of interventions for preventing and treating preterm birth so that these could be appraised and the findings from good quality reviews highlighted. Reviews, rather than individual studies, are the basis for this systematic review because of the proliferation of reviews and the benefits of a single, consistent appraisal and assessment of evidence from these reviews rather than further attempts to find and appraise the many individual studies in the literature. Our systematic review consists of a description of five interventions for preventing and treating preterm birth; antibiotics, cervical cerclage, bed rest, progesterone, and tocolytic therapy, for which at least one relevant review was found. The scope and quality of the identified reviews are described, and their conclusions and the strength of these conclusions discussed. Potentially eligible reviews were sought primarily through searches of the electronic databases MEDLINE (1966-2008), EMBASE (1980-2008), CINHAL (1982-2008), Science Citation Index (1970-2008) and The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2008). Thirty-seven reviews were identified of which 22 were included in this systematic review of reviews. This shows that antibiotics may significantly delay, but might not prevent, preterm birth for women with preterm prelabour rupture of membranes; there is insufficient evidence to show the absolute efficacy of cerclage and bed rest in preventing preterm birth; the use of progesterone appears promising; and the possible benefits of certain tocolytics, such as beta-mimetics, need to be reliably measured against the possible adverse effects when used in preventing preterm birth.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bed Rest; Cerclage, Cervical; Female; Fetal Membranes, Premature Rupture; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Premature Birth; Progesterone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Review Literature as Topic; Tocolysis
PubMed: 18996637
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2008.09.008 -
BJOG : An International Journal of... Jun 2017Progestogens have been evaluated in numerous trials and meta-analyses, many of which concluded they were effective. However, two large trials PROMISE and OPPTIMUM have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Progestogens have been evaluated in numerous trials and meta-analyses, many of which concluded they were effective. However, two large trials PROMISE and OPPTIMUM have recently concluded that progesterone was ineffective. This raises the possibility that earlier studies and reviews had been biased by either selective publication or selective choice of outcomes, so called "P-hacking".
OBJECTIVES
To compare the findings all progestogen trials and systematic reviews with those of trials with pre-registered primary outcomes which avoided selective outcome reporting.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Search of PubMed, the Cochrane Library and trial registries. Registration PROSPERO CRD42016035303.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Systematic reviews of randomised trials comparing progestogen with placebo in pregnancy and the individual trials included in those reviews. The subset of trials reporting a pre-registered primary outcome were compared with the totality of trials and reviews.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
For reviews all outcomes were included. For individual trials all outcomes reported in the systematic reviews were included. For the comparison group we recorded the registered primary outcome from trials that were either registered before they started, or registered during the recruitment phase and also double blind.
MAIN RESULTS
Nineteen of twenty-nine meta-analyses concluded that progestogens were effective. Twenty-two trials reported their pre-registered primary outcomes. There was no effect of progesterone on primary registered dichotomous outcome RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.94-1.07). Only one of the 22 showed a nominally statistically significant benefit.
AUTHOR'S CONCLUSIONS
When evaluated in registered double-blind trials with analysis restricted to predefined primary outcomes, progestational agents in pregnancy are ineffective.
TWEETABLE ABSTRACT
Progestogens to prevent pregnancy loss, an example of P-hacking.
Topics: Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Bias; Clinical Trials as Topic; Pregnancy Complications; Pregnancy Outcome; Progesterone; Research Design; Systematic Reviews as Topic
PubMed: 28318099
DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.14506 -
Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology Jun 2018Non-hereditary angioedema (AE) with normal C1 esterase inhibitor (C1INH) can be presumably bradykinin- or mast cell-mediated, or of unknown cause. In this systematic... (Review)
Review
Non-hereditary angioedema (AE) with normal C1 esterase inhibitor (C1INH) can be presumably bradykinin- or mast cell-mediated, or of unknown cause. In this systematic review, we searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus to provide an overview of the efficacy of different treatment options for the abovementioned subtypes of refractory non-hereditary AE with or without wheals and with normal C1INH. After study selection and risk of bias assessment, 61 articles were included for data extraction and analysis. Therapies were described for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor-induced AE (ACEi-AE), for idiopathic AE, and for AE with wheals. Described treatments consisted of ecallantide, icatibant, C1INH, fresh frozen plasma (FFP), tranexamic acid (TA), and omalizumab. Additionally, individual studies for anti-vitamin K, progestin, and methotrexate were found. Safety information was available in 26 articles. Most therapies were used off-label and in few patients. There is a need for additional studies with a high level of evidence. In conclusion, in acute attacks of ACEi-AE and idiopathic AE, treatment with icatibant, C1INH, TA, and FFP often leads to symptom relief within 2 h, with limited side effects. For prophylactic treatment of idiopathic AE and AE with wheals, omalizumab, TA, and C1INH were effective and safe in the majority of patients.
Topics: Angioedema; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Bradykinin; Humans; Omalizumab; Progestins; Tranexamic Acid; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27672078
DOI: 10.1007/s12016-016-8585-0 -
BJOG : An International Journal of... Oct 2023Evidence for progestogen maintenance therapy after an episode of preterm labour (PTL) is contradictory. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Evidence for progestogen maintenance therapy after an episode of preterm labour (PTL) is contradictory.
OBJECTIVES
To assess effectiveness of progestogen maintenance therapy after an episode of PTL.
SEARCH STRATEGY
An electronic search in Central Cochrane, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline and clinical trial databases was performed.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCT) investigating women between 16 and 37 weeks of gestation with an episode of PTL who were treated with progestogen maintenance therapy compared with a control group.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. The primary outcome was latency time in days. Secondary neonatal and maternal outcomes are consistent with the core outcome set for preterm birth studies. Studies were extensively assessed for data trustworthiness (integrity) and risk of bias.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirteen RCT (1722 women) were included. Progestogen maintenance therapy demonstrated a longer latency time of 4.32 days compared with controls (mean difference [MD] 4.32, 95% CI 0.40-8.24) and neonates were born with a higher birthweight (MD 124.25 g, 95% CI 8.99-239.51). No differences were found for other perinatal outcomes. However, when analysing studies with low risk of bias only (five RCT, 591 women), a significantly longer latency time could not be shown (MD 2.44 days; 95% CI -4.55 to 9.42).
CONCLUSIONS
Progestogen maintenance therapy after PTL might have a modest effect on prolongation of latency time. When analysing low risk of bias studies only, this effect was not demonstrated. Validation through further research, preferably by an individual patient data meta-analysis is highly recommended.
Topics: Pregnancy; Infant, Newborn; Female; Humans; Progestins; Tocolytic Agents; Obstetric Labor, Premature; Premature Birth; Birth Weight
PubMed: 37077041
DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.17499 -
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology :... Dec 2024The number of patients desiring fertility-preserving treatment for endometrial cancer rather than standard surgical management continues to increase. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
The number of patients desiring fertility-preserving treatment for endometrial cancer rather than standard surgical management continues to increase.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to evaluate the efficacies of fertility-preserving treatments on the live birth rate, remission and relapse rates for women with stage 1a grade 1 endometrial carcinoma to support patient counselling.
METHODS
We performed a meta-analysis for our primary outcomes of overall remission and relapse rate, and for secondary analysis, we divided papers into treatment type: systemic progestins, intrauterine progestins or hysteroscopic resection and adjuvant hormonal treatment.
RESULTS
Thirty-five observational studies met inclusion criteria, with a total of 624 patients. Overall, conservative treatment of endometrial cancer showed a remission rate of 77% (95% CI: 70-84%), a relapse rate of 20% (95% CI: 13-27%) and a live birth rate of 20% (95% CI: 15-25%) with more favourable outcomes for the hysteroscopic resection group.
CONCLUSIONS
Hysteroscopic resection and adjuvant hormonal treatment had the most favourable fertility and oncological outcomes. Further high-quality prospective multi-centre trials are warranted to determine the optimal treatment regimen and dosage and risk stratification for these patients.
Topics: Humans; Female; Progestins; Prospective Studies; Fertility Preservation; Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Endometrial Neoplasms; Fertility; Recurrence; Endometrial Hyperplasia
PubMed: 38126736
DOI: 10.1080/01443615.2023.2294329 -
Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology Apr 2024To evaluate the effect of hormonal suppression of endometriosis on the size of endometriotic ovarian cysts. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effect of hormonal suppression of endometriosis on the size of endometriotic ovarian cysts.
DATA SOURCES
The authors searched MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov from January 2012 to December 2022.
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION
We included studies of premenopausal women undergoing hormonal treatment of endometriosis for ≥3 months. The authors excluded studies involving surgical intervention in the follow-up period and those using hormones to prevent endometrioma recurrence after endometriosis surgery. Risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022385612).
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS
The primary outcome was the mean change in endometrioma volume, expressed as a percentage, from baseline to at least 6 months. Secondary outcomes were the change in volume at 3 months and analyses by class of hormonal therapy. The authors included 16 studies (15 cohort studies, 1 randomized controlled trial) of 888 patients treated with dienogest (7 studies), other progestins (4), combined hormonal contraceptives (2), and other suppressive therapy (3). Globally, the decrease in endometrioma volume became statistically significant at 6 months with a mean reduction of 55% (95% confidence interval, -40 to -71; 18 treatment groups; 730 patients; p <.001; I = 96%). The reduction was the greatest with dienogest and norethindrone acetate plus letrozole, followed by relugolix and leuprolide acetate. The volume reduction was not statistically significant with combined hormonal contraceptives or other progestins. There was high heterogeneity, and studies were at risk of selection bias.
CONCLUSION
Hormonal suppression can substantially reduce endometrioma size, but there is uncertainty in the exact reduction patients may experience.
Topics: Humans; Female; Endometriosis; Progestins; Hormones; Ovarian Diseases; Contraceptive Agents
PubMed: 38190884
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2024.01.002 -
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Jun 2013The aim of this systematic review is to summarize the current knowledge about the etiology and pathogenesis of borderline tumors ovarian cancer with special emphasis on... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The aim of this systematic review is to summarize the current knowledge about the etiology and pathogenesis of borderline tumors ovarian cancer with special emphasis on the role of endocrine treatments and reproductive factors to establish a foundation for future studies.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review on the relation between ovarian epithelial tumors (OET) and reproductive factors using the keywords: ovarian cancer, ovarian tumor, ovarian borderline tumor, age at menarche, age at menopause, parity, infertility, PCO syndrome, oral contraception, menopausal hormone therapy, fertility treatment. Totally, 3,290 abstracts were scanned for their relevance in this publication and 127 were finally included.
RESULTS
The incidence of ovarian epithelial cancer and ovarian borderline tumors is influenced by certain reproductive factors. The strongest protective effects are conferred by parity and use of oral contraceptive pills. Recent molecular biologic and histopathologic studies prove that OET represent a diverse group of tumors, each histologic type with a different genetic background. This is at least partly reflected in epidemiologic and clinical studies showing different risk modulating effects of reproductive factors and endocrine therapies on OET.
CONCLUSIONS
The etiology and pathogenesis of ovarian cancer are still not fully understood. None of the so far proposed hypothesis on the development of OET can fully account for the epidemiologic and clinical findings in the context of reproductive factors and OET development. Further research approaches are warranted and need to put more weight on the clinical and genetical diversity of OET to yield a more detailed insight into their pathogenesis.
Topics: Age Factors; Androgens; Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial; Contraceptives, Oral; Estrogen Replacement Therapy; Estrogens; Female; Gonadotropins, Pituitary; Humans; Infertility, Female; MEDLINE; Menarche; Menopause; Neoplasms, Glandular and Epithelial; Ovarian Neoplasms; Parity; Polycystic Ovary Syndrome; Pregnancy; Progesterone; Reproduction; Risk Factors
PubMed: 23503972
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-013-2784-1 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020A frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycle is when one or more embryos (frozen during a previous treatment cycle) are thawed and transferred to the uterus. Some women undergo... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
A frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycle is when one or more embryos (frozen during a previous treatment cycle) are thawed and transferred to the uterus. Some women undergo fresh embryo transfer (ET) cycles with embryos derived from donated oocytes. In both situations, the endometrium is primed with oestrogen and progestogen in different doses and routes of administration.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the most effective endometrial preparation for women undergoing transfer with frozen embryos or embryos from donor oocytes with regard to the subsequent live birth rate (LBR).
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, LILACS, trials registers and abstracts of reproductive societies' meetings were searched in June 2020 together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating endometrial preparation in women undergoing fresh donor cycles and frozen embryo transfers.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We analysed all available interventions versus placebo, no treatment, or between each other. The primary review outcome was live birth rate. Secondary outcomes were clinical and multiple pregnancy, miscarriage, cycle cancellation, endometrial thickness and adverse effects.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty-one RCTs (5426 women) were included. Evidence was moderate to very low-quality: the main limitations were serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of methods, and serious imprecision. Stimulated versus programmed cycle We are uncertain whether a letrozole-stimulated cycle compared to a programmed cycle, for endometrial preparation, improves LBR (odds ratio (OR) 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 3.26; 100 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence). Stimulating with follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), letrozole or clomiphene citrate may improve clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.38; 656 participants; five studies; I = 11%; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if they reduce miscarriage rate (MR) (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.71; 355 participants; three studies; I = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Endometrial thickness (ET) may be reduced with clomiphene citrate (mean difference(MD) -1.04, 95% CI -1.59 to -0.49; 92 participants; one study; low-quality evidence). Other outcomes were not reported. Natural versus programmed cycle We are uncertain of the effect from a natural versus programmed cycle for LBR (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.28; 1285 participants; four studies; I = 0%; very low-quality evidence) and CPR (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.01; 1249 participants; five studies; I = 60%; very low-quality evidence), while a natural cycle probably reduces the cycle cancellation rate (CCR) (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.82; 734 participants; one study; moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect on MR and ET. No study reported other outcomes. Transdermal versus oral oestrogens From low-quality evidence we are uncertain of the effect transdermal compared to oral oestrogens has on CPR (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.25; 504 participants; three studies; I = 58%) or MR (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.09; 414 participants; two studies; I = 0%). Other outcomes were not reported. Day of starting administration of progestogen When doing a fresh ET using donated oocytes in a synchronised cycle starting progestogen on the day of oocyte pick-up (OPU) or the day after OPU, in comparison with recipients that start progestogen the day prior to OPU, probably increases the CPR (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.13 to 3.08; 282 participants; one study, moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect on multiple pregnancy rate (MPR) or MR. It probably reduces the CCR (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.74; 282 participants; one study; moderate-quality evidence). No study reported other outcomes. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist versus control A cycle with GnRH agonist compared to without may improve LBR (OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.19 to 5.78; 234 participants; one study; low-quality evidence). From low-quality evidence we are uncertain of the effect on CPR (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.43; 1289 participants; eight studies; I = 20%), MR (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.00; 828 participants; four studies; I = 0%), CCR (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.17; 530 participants; two studies; I = 0%) and ET (MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.16; 697 participants; four studies; I = 4%). No study reported other outcomes. Among different GnRH agonists From very low-quality evidence we are uncertain if cycles among different GnRH agonists improves CPR or MR. No study reported other outcomes. GnRH agonists versus GnRH antagonists GnRH antagonists compared to agonists probably improves CPR (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.90; 473 participants; one study; moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect on MR and MPR. No study reported other outcomes. Aspirin versus control From very low-quality evidence we are uncertain whether a cycle with aspirin versus without improves LBR, CPR, or ET. Steroids versus control From very low-quality evidence we are uncertain whether a cycle with steroids compared to without improves LBR, CPR or MR. No study reported other outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence on the use of any particular intervention for endometrial preparation in women undergoing fresh donor cycles and frozen embryo transfers. In frozen embryo transfers, low-quality evidence showed that clinical pregnancy rates may be improved in a stimulated cycle compared to a programmed one, and we are uncertain of the effect when comparing a programmed cycle to a natural cycle. Cycle cancellation rates are probably reduced in a natural cycle. Although administering a GnRH agonist, compared to without, may improve live birth rates, clinical pregnancy rates will probably be improved in a GnRH antagonist cycle over an agonist cycle. In fresh synchronised oocyte donor cycles, the clinical pregnancy rate is probably improved and cycle cancellation rates are probably reduced when starting progestogen the day of or day after donor oocyte retrieval. Adequately powered studies are needed to evaluate each treatment more accurately.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Bias; Clomiphene; Cryopreservation; Drug Administration Schedule; Embryo Implantation; Embryo Transfer; Embryo, Mammalian; Endometrium; Female; Follicle Stimulating Hormone; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Humans; Letrozole; Live Birth; Oocyte Donation; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Progesterone; Progestins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33112418
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006359.pub3