A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

A prospective study of oral estrogen versus transdermal estrogen (gel) for hormone replacement frozen embryo transfer cycles. | LitMetric

Aim: This study was done to compare the efficacy of transdermal estrogen (gel) to oral estradiol in hormone replacement frozen embryo transfer cycles (HR- FET).

Materials And Methods: This was a prospective study conducted between March 2019 and December 2019. We included 294 HR FET cycles: 156 cycles using oral estrogen tablets (oral group) and 138 cycles using transdermal gel (17 beta estradiol 0.06% w/w) (gel group). Primary objective of this study was to compare endometrial thickness (ET) on the day of progesterone start between the two groups. Our secondary objective was to compare implantation rates (IR), clinical pregnancy rates (CPR), miscarriage rates (MR), duration of estrogen administration, estradiol (E2) levels before the start of progesterone, cycle cancellation rates, patient satisfaction score and undesirable side effects between both the groups.

Results: There was no significant difference in the ET, IR, CPR, MR and duration of E2 administration and cycle cancellation rates between both the groups. Patient satisfaction score was significantly higher (8.02 ± 1.07 vs 6.96 ± 0.99  < .01) and side effects were significantly lower (18.1% vs 55.1%, ≤.01), in the gel group compared to the oral group.

Conclusion: This study concluded that transdermal estrogen (gel) is equally efficacious as oral estrogen in HR FET cycles with transdermal gel having an added benefit of better patient comfort with less side effects and better safety profile.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09513590.2020.1793941DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

prospective study
8
oral estrogen
8
transdermal estrogen
8
estrogen gel
8
hormone replacement
8
replacement frozen
8
frozen embryo
8
embryo transfer
8
transfer cycles
8
study compare
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!