Table 2.
Outcomes results
| Luteal-phase stimulation | ||||||||
| Studies | MII oocytes (±SD) | Clinical pregnancy rate | Cancelation rate | Days of stimulation (SD) | ||||
| LPS | eFPS | LPS | eFPS | LPS | eFPS | LPS | eFPS | |
| Poor ovarian reserve | ||||||||
| Jin 2018 [33] | NA | NA | 10/25 (40%) | 17/56 (30.4%) | 13/56 (23.2%) | 38/132 (28.8%) | 11.2 ± 3.0 (52) | 8.9 ± 2.4 (132) |
| Lin 2018 [34] | 2.4 ± 1.4 (28) | 1.2 ± 0.8 (23) | 5/28 (17.9%) | 3/23 (13.0%) | 2/30 (6.7%) | 7/30 (23.3%) | 11.5 ± 2.2 (28) | 9.9 ± 2.0 (23) |
| Llacer 2020 [39] | 2.1 ± 2.0 (24) | 2.6 ± 2.2 (27) | NA | NA | 6/30 (20%) | 3/30 (10%) | 8.4 ± 2.8 (24) | 8.2 ± 4.1 (27) |
| Zhang 2018 [40] | NA | NA | 31/109 (28.4%) | 62/163 (38.0%) | NA | NA | 11.3 ± 3.6 (154) | 8.1 ± 2.8 (231) |
| General population | ||||||||
| Buendgen 2013 [30] | 7.2 ± 3.9 (10) | 7.9 ± 4.8 (30) | 1/10 (10%)* | 6/30 (20%)* | NA | NA | 11.7 ± 1.6 (10) | 9.1 ± 1.3 (30) |
| Qin 2016 [37] | 5.2 ± 3.9 (36) | 5.7 ± 3.6 (41) | 14/36 (38.9%) | 17/41 (41.4%) | 8/50 (16%) | 5/50 (10%) | 10.9 ± 3.4 (36) | 8.9 ± 1.4 (41) |
| Wang 2016 [42] | 10.9 ± 7.6 (727) | 9.1 ± 5.5 (1385) | 365/822 (44.4%) | 656/1675 (39.2%) | 90/727 (12.4%) | 138/1385 (10%) | 10.4 ± 1.8 (727) | 8.2 ± 1.7 (1385) |
| Oocyte freezing | ||||||||
| Cakmak 2013 [6] | 10.3 ± 6.3 (22) | 9.7 ± 6.7 (103) | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Cavagna 2018 [31] | 10.9 ± 7.4 (47) | 8.9 ± 6.8 (41) | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Von Wolf 2016 [38] | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 11.5 ± 2.2 (103) | 10.8 ± 2.4 (472) |
| Oocyte donors | ||||||||
| Checa 2015 [32] | 13.2 ± 5.2 (5) | 12.4 ± 5.2 (5) | 3/5 (60%) | 2/5 (40%) | NA | NA | 10.6 ± 2.1 (5) | 12.2 ± 1.9 (5) |
| Late follicular phase stimulation | ||||||||
| General population | ||||||||
| Qin 2016 [37] | 5.2 ± 3.7 (33) | 5.7 ± 3.6 (41) | 15/33 (45.5%) | 17/41 (41.5%) | 11/50 (22%) | 5/50 (10%) | 11.4 ± 3.1 (33) | 8.9 ± 1.4 (41) |
| Oocyte freezing | ||||||||
| Cakmak 2013 [6] | 9.1 ± 5.1 (13) | 9.7 ± 6.7 (103) | NA | NA | NA | NA | 10.5 ± 1.5 (13) | 9.3 ± 1.5 (103) |
| Cavagna 2018 [31] | 8.0 ± 5.4 (21) | 8.9 ± 6.8 (41) | NA | NA | NA | NA | 9.7 ± 1.3 (21) | 9.9 ± 1.3 (41) |
| Von Wolf 2016 [38] | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 10.6 ± 2.7 (109) | 11.6 ± 7.7 (472) | |
| Oocyte donors | ||||||||
| Checa 2015 [32] | 13.0 ± 9.1 (6) | 16.2 ± 4.1 (6) | 6/6 (100%) | 3/6 (50%) | NA | NA | 9.8 ± 0.8 (6) | 10.4 ± 1.5 (6) |
| Double stimulation | ||||||||
| Poor ovarian reserve | ||||||||
| Jin 2018 [33] | NA | NA | 19/52 (36.5%) | 17/56 (30.4%) | 10/76 (13.1%) | 38/132 (28.7%) | NA | NA |
| Martazanova et al. 2018 [35] | 7.4 ± 3.6 (76) | 3.9 ± 2.0 (72) | 39/76 (51.3%) | 30/72 (41.7%) | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Ubali 2015 [14] | 6.1 ± 3.0 (17) | 3.2 ± 1.5 (17) | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Vaiarelli 2020 [41] | NA | NA | 15/100 (15%) | 16/197 (8.1%) | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Random-start stimulation (not specified) | ||||||||
| Oocyte freezing | ||||||||
| Cakmak 2013 [6] | 9.9 ± 6.4 (35) | 9.7 ± 8.4 (109) | NA | NA | NA | NA | 10.9 ± 1.5 (35) | 9.3 ± 1.6 (109) |
| Muteshi 2018 [36] | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 12.2 ± 3.6 (24) | 11.5 ± 1.5 (103) |
Continuous outcomes are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. Dichotomic outcomes are expressed as n/N (%). NA, not available. MII, metaphase II. LPS, luteal-phase stimulation. eFPS, early follicular phase stimulation. lFPS, late follicular phase stimulation
*Cumulative pregnancy rate
¶Live birth rate/ongoing pregnancy rate