Effectiveness of progesterone rescue in women presenting low circulating progesterone levels around the day of embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Importance Over the last decade, frozen embryo transfer (FET) has been increasingly used in contemporary fertility units. Despite the rapid increase in FET, there is still insufficient evidence to recommend an optimized protocol for endometrial preparation especially in patients with lower progesterone (P4) levels. Previous studies have concluded that P4 levels <10 ng/mL are associated with poorer pregnancy outcomes than those reported with high levels of circulating P4. Objective To identify whether rescue P4 dosing in patients with low P4 can salvage adverse outcomes associated with low P4 levels, resulting in outcomes comparable to patients with adequate progesterone. Data Sources The study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines and prospectively registered under the PROSPERO database (CRD42022357125). Six databases (Embase, MEDLINE, APA PsycInfo, Global Health, HMIC Health Management Information Consortium, and Google Scholar) and 2 additional sources were searched from inception to August 29, 2022. Study Selection and synthesis Prospective and retrospective cohort studies, reporting the association between rescue progesterone and one or more pregnancy outcomes, were included. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), while the quality of evidence by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Summative and subgroup data as well as heterogeneity were generated by the Cochrane platform RevMan (V. 5.4). Main Outcome Measure(s) To compare ongoing pregnancy rate as primary outcome and clinical pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, and live birth rate as secondary outcomes between patients with low (<10 ng/mL) receiving rescue progesterone vs. those with adequate levels of P4 (≥10 ng/mL). Result(s) Overall, 7 observational studies were included in the analysis, with a total of 5927 patients of median age 34 (interquartile range [IQR]: 31.55, 37.13). Overall, patient group comparison, namely those with low P4 that received a rescue dose and those with adequate P4 levels, did not yield significant differences for either the primary or secondary outcomes. For ongoing clinical pregnancy, patients with low P4 receiving the rescue dose vs. those with adequate P4 levels was odds ratio (OR) 0.98 (95% CI: 0.78, 1.24; P = .86, I 2 : 41%), whereas for miscarriage events, OR was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.81, 1.17; P = .80, I 2 : 0). Equally, for clinical pregnancy, OR was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.78, 1.06; P = .24; I 2 : 33%), and for live birth, OR was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.77, 1.09; P = .33; I 2 : 43%). Subgroup analysis on the basis or rescue administration route successfully explained summative heterogeneity. Conclusion(s) Rescue P4 dosing in patients with low P4 results in ongoing pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy and live birth rates were comparable to those of patients with adequate P4 levels. However, robust randomized controlled trials assessing rescue treatment in women with low P4 are needed to confirm these findings. Rescue P4 in patients with low circulating P4 around embryo transfer day may result in reproductive outcomes comparable to those with adequate P4 levels. Study registration CRD42022357125 (PROSPERO).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,011 | 0,026 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,024 | 0,040 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,007 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».