Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 284

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Individualized versus conventional ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a multicenter, randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded, phase 3 noninferiority trial

Open access
Nyboe Andersen, Anders, Nelson, Scott M., Fauser, Bart C.J.M., García-Velasco, Juan Antonio, Klein, Bjarke M., Arce, Joan-Carles, Tournaye, Herman, De Sutter, Petra, Decleer, Wim, Petracco, Alvaro, Borges, Edson, Barbosa, Caio Parente, Havelock, Jon, Claman, Paul, Yuzpe, Albert, Višnová, Hana, Ventruba, Pavel, Uher, Petr, Mrazek, Milan, Andersen, Anders Nyboe, Knudsen, Ulla Breth, Dewailly, Didier, Leveque, Anne Guivarc'h, La Marca, Antonio, Papaleo, Enrico, Kuczynski, Waldemar, Kozioł, Katarzyna, Anshina, Margarita, Zazerskaya, Irina, Gzgzyan, Alexander, Bulychova, Elena, Verdú, Victoria, Barri, Pedro, García-Velasco, Juan Antonio, Fernández-Sánchez, Manuel, Martin, Fernando Sánchez, Bosch, Ernesto, Serna, José, Castillon, Gemma, Bernabeu, Rafael, Ferrando, Marcos, Lavery, Stuart, Gaudoin, Marco, Nelson, Scott M., Fauser, Bart C.J.M., Klein, Bjarke M., Helmgaard, Lisbeth, Mannaerts, Bernadette, Arce, Joan-Carles·2017·Fertility and Sterility
DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.10.033
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of follitropin delta, a new human recombinant FSH with individualized dosing based on serum antimüllerian hormone (AMH) and body weight, with conventional follitropin alfa dosing for ovarian stimulation in women undergoing IVF. DESIGN: Randomized, multicenter, assessor-blinded, noninferiority trial (ESTHER-1). SETTING: Reproductive medicine clinics. PATIENT(S): A total of 1,329 women (aged 18-40 years). INTERVENTION(S): Follitropin delta (AMH <15 pmol/L: 12 μg/d; AMH ≥15 pmol/L: 0.10-0.19 μg/kg/d; maximum 12 μg/d), or follitropin alfa (150 IU/d for 5 days, potential subsequent dose adjustments; maximum 450 IU/d). MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURE(S): Ongoing pregnancy and ongoing implantation rates; noninferiority margins -8.0%. RESULT(S): Ongoing pregnancy (30.7% vs. 31.6%; difference -0.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) -5.9% to 4.1%]), ongoing implantation (35.2% vs. 35.8%; -0.6% [95% CI -6.1% to 4.8%]), and live birth (29.8% vs. 30.7%; -0.9% [95% CI -5.8% to 4.0%]) rates were similar for individualized follitropin delta and conventional follitropin alfa. Individualized follitropin delta resulted in more women with target response (8-14 oocytes) (43.3% vs. 38.4%), fewer poor responses (fewer than four oocytes in patients with AMH <15 pmol/L) (11.8% vs. 17.9%), fewer excessive responses (≥15 or ≥20 oocytes in patients with AMH ≥15 pmol/L) (27.9% vs. 35.1% and 10.1% vs. 15.6%, respectively), and fewer measures taken to prevent ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (2.3% vs. 4.5%), despite similar oocyte yield (10.0 ± 5.6 vs. 10.4 ± 6.5) and similar blastocyst numbers (3.3 ± 2.8 vs. 3.5 ± 3.2), and less gonadotropin use (90.0 ± 25.3 vs. 103.7 ± 33.6 μg). CONCLUSION(S): Optimizing ovarian response in IVF by individualized dosing according to pretreatment patient characteristics results in similar efficacy and improved safety compared with conventional ovarian stimulation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01956110.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.10.033

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 22 references

Cited by

See all 284

Metadata

Authors
Nyboe Andersen, A., Nelson, S. M., Fauser, B. C. J. M., García-Velasco, J. A., Klein, B. M., Arce, J.-C., Tournaye, H., De Sutter, P., Decleer, W., Petracco, A., Borges, E., Barbosa, C. P., Havelock, J., Claman, P., Yuzpe, A., Višnová, H., Ventruba, P., Uher, P., Mrazek, M., Andersen, A. N., Knudsen, U. B., Dewailly, D., Leveque, A. G., La Marca, A., Papaleo, E., Kuczynski, W., Kozioł, K., Anshina, M., Zazerskaya, I., Gzgzyan, A., Bulychova, E., Verdú, V., Barri, P., García-Velasco, J. A., Fernández-Sánchez, M., Martin, F. S., Bosch, E., Serna, J., Castillon, G., Bernabeu, R., Ferrando, M., Lavery, S., Gaudoin, M., Nelson, S. M., Fauser, B. C. J. M., Klein, B. M., Helmgaard, L., Mannaerts, B., & Arce, J.-C.
Venue
Fertility and Sterility
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-02
Volume
107
Issue
2
Pages
387-396.e4
ISSN
0015-0282 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.10.033
OpenAlex
W2558449694
Cited by
284
References
22
FWCI
32.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Individualized versus conventional ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a multicenter, randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded, phase 3 noninferiority trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.10.033
The paper
Nyboe Andersen, A., Nelson, S. M., Fauser, B. C. J. M., García-Velasco, J. A., Klein, B. M., Arce, J.-C., Tournaye, H., De Sutter, P., Decleer, W., Petracco, A., Borges, E., Barbosa, C. P., Havelock, J., Claman, P., Yuzpe, A., Višnová, H., Ventruba, P., Uher, P., Mrazek, M., . . . Arce, J.-C. (2017). Individualized versus conventional ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a multicenter, randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded, phase 3 noninferiority trial. Fertility and Sterility. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.10.033

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.