Home > DARE Reviews > Vaginal progesterone gel for luteal...
  • We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information

PubMed Health. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet]. York (UK): Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK); 1995-.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews.

Vaginal progesterone gel for luteal phase support in IVF/ICSI cycles: a meta-analysis

Review published: 2010.

Bibliographic details: Polyzos NP, Messini CI, Papanikolaou EG, Mauri D, Tzioras S, Badawy A, Messinis IE.  Vaginal progesterone gel for luteal phase support in IVF/ICSI cycles: a meta-analysis. Fertility and Sterility 2010; 94(6): 2083-2087. [PubMed: 20171629]

Quality assessment

This review concluded that no significant difference existed, in clinical pregnancy rate, between vaginal gel and all other vaginal progesterone forms, for luteal-phase support, in women undergoing in-vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. These conclusions reflect the evidence presented, and are likely to be reliable. Full critical summary

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether vaginal progesterone gel may result in similar or higher pregnancy rates compared with all other vaginal progesterone forms when used for luteal-phase support.

DESIGN: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials using odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

PATIENT(S): Infertile women undergoing IVF or ICSI.

INTERVENTION(S): Vaginal progesterone gel 90 mg once or twice daily versus any other vaginal progesterone form for luteal phase support.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Clinical pregnancy rates.

RESULT(S): Seven randomized controlled trials, involving 2,447 patients, were included in the analysis. No difference was observed in the overall clinical pregnancy rate when comparing vaginal progesterone gel with any other vaginal progesterone form. Moreover, clinical pregnancy rates were similar in protocols using only GnRH agonists and when comparing vaginal gel with the traditional treatment of 200 mg×3 vaginal progesterone capsules.

CONCLUSION(S): This meta-analysis provides solid evidence that no significant difference exists between vaginal gel and all other vaginal progesterone forms in terms of clinical pregnancy rates.

Copyright © 2010 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

CRD has determined that this article meets the DARE scientific quality criteria for a systematic review.

Copyright © 2013 University of York.

PubMed Health Blog...

read all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...