Back to all available

Effects of different seasonal use of antagonist ovulation induction protocols on in vitro fertilization embryo transfer: a retrospective cohort study

gynecology-and-obstetrics
womens-health

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the effect of antagonist ovulation induction program on embryo status and pregnancy outcome in infertile patients in different seasons.

Methods: A retrospective analysis of 1413 infertile patients who received IVF and antagonist ovulation induction program in the Reproductive Medicine Center of our hospital from January 2019 to December 2023 was conducted. According to different seasons, they were divided into spring group, summer group, autumn group, and winter group. The general information, embryo status, and pregnancy outcome of patients in each group were compared.

Results: There were no significant differences in female age, BMI, infertility type, total amount of Gn, e ndometrial thickness on day of transplantation, MII ovum rate, usable embryo rate, D3 embryo rate, blastocyst rate, HCG positive rate, clinical pregnancy rate, abortion rate and live birth rate among the four groups (P>0.05).

Conclusion: The results of embryo and pregnancy in infertile patients treated with antagonist ovulation induction protocol in different seasons can be better.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].