AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Research Article | DOI: https://doi.org/10.31579/2578-8965/276
Hanabusa Women’s Clinic, Sannomiya Central Building 7F, 1-1-2 Sannomiya-cho, Chuo-ku, Kobe city, Hyogo, Japan.
*Corresponding Author: Noritoshi Enatsu, Hanabusa Women’s Clinic, Sannomiya Central Building 7F, 1-1-2 Sannomiya-cho, Chuo-ku, Kobe city, Hyogo, Japan.
Citation: Noritoshi Enatsu, Yihsien Enatsu, Kunihiro Enatsu, Ai Yamada, Yuri Mizusawa, et al, (2025), The Association Between Gonadotropin Dosage and Oocyte Retrieval Outcomes in in-vitro fertilization (IVF) Cycles, J. Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, 9(5) DOI:10.31579/2578-8965/276
Copyright: © 2025, Noritoshi Enatsu. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of The Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Received: 04 July 2025 | Accepted: 17 July 2025 | Published: 24 July 2025
Keywords: stimulated ovaries; egg retrieval; fertilization; embryo transfer; pregnancy; in vitro maturation (IVM)
Background/Aim: To assess the relationship between Gonadotropin dosage and IVF outcomes, aiming to determine the optimal dosage for maximizing the IVF outcomes.
Materials and Methods: A detailed analysis was undertaken on 53,764 stimulation cycles conducted between January 2009 and May 2024. The primary endpoints encompassed the number of oocytes retrieved and secondary outcome was the number of blastocysts. Key parameters evaluated included the dosage of Gonadotropin, serum FSH concentrations stratified by patient age (<35, 35-40 and ≤40) and AMH categories (<1, 1-3 and 3≤).
Results: The analysis showed that increased total gonadotropin dosages affected the number of oocytes retrieved and blastocysts formed. Optimal outcomes were observed within the range of 2,000–3,000 IU, while efficacy decreased beyond this threshold. Patients with higher ovarian reserve needed lower dosages to reach the peak. Pre-trigger serum FSH levels of 15–20 mIU/ml were identified as beneficial for patients with robust ovarian reserve, and levels of 20–25 mIU/ml for those with low ovarian reserve. It was noted that the dosage and serum FSH levels optimized for blastocyst formation were lower than those required to maximize oocyte retrieval.
Conclusions: Gonadotropin dosage and serum FSH beyond a threshold offers limited benefit. Individualized stimulation strategies considering age, AMH, and serum FSH levels are recommended for optimizing outcomes.
Ovarian stimulation during the in-vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle is a critical clinical process that directly affects the outcomes of IVF. It has been reported that the number of oocytes retrieved is positively associated with the live birth rate [1]. Essentially, increased ovarian stimulation through higher doses of gonadotropin administration results in a greater yield of oocytes. Nonetheless, when the yield exceeds 18 oocytes, the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation rises, necessitating a careful balance between the effectiveness of hyperstimulation and its associated risks [2]. Consequently, understanding the expected number of oocytes yielded with varying levels of stimulation is essential. The stimulation intensity is primarily associated with gonadotropins, particularly follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH). Therefore, the effective use of FSH preparations is a crucial skill for physicians in the reproductive field.
To achieve an optimal balance between a single dosage and the maximum daily dosages, 150 IU is generally recommended and recognized empirically as a standard dose. This dosage typically results in obtaining an ideal range of 8-14 oocytes for a significant portion of the ART patient population [3, 4]. However, with this dosage, a subset of patients with low or high ovarian reserve may show either a low or high response [5, 6]. Additionally, there has been recent debate regarding the optimal number of oocytes to retrieve. The optimal retrieval range of 8-14 oocytes is primarily derived from the standard Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone (GnRH) agonist protocol with fresh embryo transfer (ET) cycles. Conversely, the combination of the GnRH antagonist protocol and the freeze-all strategy has gained popularity in many countries due to its enhanced safety profile. It has been well visited that the antagonist protocol and progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol, which involve GnRH agonist triggers for final oocyte maturation, serves a significant advantage in mitigating ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) risk, particularly in younger patients with robust ovarian function [7-10]. Additionally, advances in cryopreservation technology have led to improve the frozen embryo transfer (FET), such that FET implantation and pregnancy rates now surpass those of fresh ET especially in patients with high ovarian reserve [11, 12]. It is well-established that the risk of OHSS can be significantly reduced through FET [12]. This key advantage has contributed to the widespread adoption of FET as a standard practice. For instance, in Japan, it has been reported that over 90% of embryo transfer cycles are currently conducted in FET cycles [13].
The improvement in safety has facilitated an increase in the number of oocytes collected. Additionally, trends indicate that the average age for commencing fertility treatment is rising in many countries [14]. This necessitates the retrieval of a higher number of oocytes, as it is well established that older patients require an increased quantity of oocytes to achieve a successful live birth. In fact, it is reported that patients with aged 38 or older has less than 50% of probability of having at least 1 child with 14 oocytes [10]. Similarly, it is reported that a higher number of oocytes retrieved improves the cumulative live birth rate (LBR) without impairing the primary transfer LBR, suggesting that ovarian stimulation strategies should aim to safely maximize the number of oocytes retrieved [15].
Considering these backgrounds, this study aims to retrospectively analyze the relationship between FSH dosage, serum FSH levels, and the number of oocytes retrieved, categorized by age and AMH levels as the most relevant factors influencing oocyte yield.
Patient population
This retrospective study comprised 53,764 IVF cycles conducted at our institution between January 2009 and April 2010. The inclusion criteria for this study followed those of a previously reported study [16], enrolling infertile couples seeking pregnancy through IVF. Exclusion criteria included cycles involving women aged 45 years or older, oocyte cryopreservation, or oocyte donation. Additionally, cycles with factors potentially influencing fertilization or blastocyst development, such as testicular sperm extraction (TESE) or in-vitro maturation (IVM), were excluded from the analysis. The cycles considered were categorized based on serum levels and female age groups, according to the method described by Shen et al. [17], classifying based on AMH and age. Specifically, subjects were divided into three groups according to AMH levels (AMH ≤ 1 ng/ml, 1 ng/ml < AMH ≤ 3 ng/ml, 3 ng/ml < AMH). Within each group, they were further subdivided by age into three categories (<35 years old, 35-40 years old, and 40-44 years old).
IVF Cycle Management
The stimulation protocols had no restriction, and the standard controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) protocol was used. For oocyte stimulation, recombinant FSH or human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) were employed. The total gonadotropin dose was determined by summing the doses of FSH and/or hMG administered during the ovarian stimulation period. Patients using follitropin delta were excluded from this study due to the difference in dose units (μg) compared to other products (IU).
To prevent premature LH surges, GnRH agonist, GnRH antagonist or oral progesterone were used. The final oocyte maturation trigger was administered when at least two follicles reached a diameter of 17-18 mm or when the attending physician determined the follicular cohort was mature. GnRHa was used as a final oocyte maturation trigger in cycles wherein GnRHa was not employed for ovulation suppression during COH, such as in GnRH antagonist protocols and progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocols [18]. In cycles wherein GnRHa was utilized for ovulation suppression, such as in long or short agonist protocols, as well as in mild or antagonist cycle planning for fresh embryo transfer, hCG was primarily used. The dual trigger was applied when the initial oocyte retrieval yielded fewer mature oocytes than expected, indicating an inadequate response to the trigger.
After oocyte retrieval, IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) was conducted according to the semen analysis results and prior fertilization outcomes. The embryos were cultured to the cleavage or blastocyst stage and then either transferred or cryopreserved. Blastocysts were classified according to the Gardner’s grading scale [19]. Those with grade 3BB or better on day 5 defined high-quality blastocysts. In calculating the blastocyst rate and the high-quality blastocyst rate, we excluded embryos undergoing cleavage-stage embryo transfer or freezing and used the number of embryos intended for blastocyst culture as the denominator.
The primary outcomes measured was the total number of oocytes retrieved, and the secondary outcomes included the number of blastocysts. Scatter plots were utilized to identify trends for subsequent statistical analyses, specifically examining the relationship between gonadotropin dosage and the number of oocytes retrieved. The results were organized based on gonadotropin dose, with the average number of oocytes retrieved and the number of blastocysts per 100 cases were plotted to discern trends. Additionally, the data were stratified by total gonadotropin dose and analyzed for trends across varying dosage groups. Quadratic function approximation curves were displayed, and correlations within the scatter plots were assessed using the coefficient of determination (R²). A similar analysis was conducted using serum FSH levels, where the serum FSH concentration represented the final value of the data within three days of the final maturation trigger. As in the analysis of gonadotropin dosage, the data were grouped by FSH value and correlated with a quadratic function. Welch's t-test was utilized to perform statistical analyses between groups for each category, with a p-value < 0.05 deemed to indicate statistical significance.
All statistical data were analyzed using Excel® (Microsoft 365) and EZR® (Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University, Saitama, Japan), which is a graphical user interface for R (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing).
Ethical Considerations
This study is a retrospective cohort analysis, and no interventions were made regarding the IVF treatment process. The Institutional Review Board of Hanabusa Women’s Clinic, which includes members selected by the institution and an external third-party institution, approved this study (approval number: 2025-05). Patients provided informed consent prior to the treatment period preceding IVF cycles, and separate confirmation for data analysis and publication via anonymization was obtained independently of treatment consent. Only patients who consented to provide their data were included in the database.
Table 1 highlights the baseline characteristics of the study participants, categorized by age groups and serum AMH levels. The average age of the participants was 38.1 years, with a standard deviation of 4.4, while the mean AMH level was recorded at 2.1 ng/ml, accompanied by a standard deviation of 2.6. On average, participants underwent 3.9 ART attempts, including the current cycle, with basal FSH levels measured at 6.2 mIU/ml (SD: 7.3), increasing to 16.6 mIU/ml (SD: 7.7) following gonadotropin administration. The average duration of gonadotropin administration was 6.1 days (SD: 3.9) and total gonadotropin dose was 1,550 IU (SD: 1,350).
Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between the total gonadotropin dosage and the outcomes of oocyte retrieval and blastocyst formation. In all groups, the number of oocytes retrieved, and blastocysts formed demonstrated significant correlations with quadratic function approximation curves (R²> 0.5). This indicates that the oocyte retrieval count and blastocyst formation initially increase with gonadotropin dosage up to a certain level, beyond which they begin to decrease. Gonadotropin dosages positively influenced the number of oocytes retrieved, with optimal outcomes observed within the range of 2,500 to 4,000 IU. The approximation curves further demonstrate that younger individuals in each AMH category achieve higher peak oocyte retrieval counts with lower gonadotropin dosages compared to older age groups. The tables accompanying the figure detail the average number of oocytes retrieved, and blastocysts formed, categorized by gonadotropin dosage ranges, with the peak gonadotropin dosages highlighted in bold. In all groups, the gonadotropin dosage at which the number of oocytes retrieved peaks is higher than the dosage at which the number of blastocysts formed reaches its peak. Consequently, the optimal dose for maximizing the number of blastocysts observed ranged from 2,000 to 3,000 IU.
Table 2 provides an in-depth analysis of the correlation between gonadotropin dosage and IVF outcomes, with participants categorized based on AMH levels and age ranges. Among individuals with AMH levels below 1 ng/ml (N=23,324), the majority were aged between 40 and 45 years (N=14,334; 61.4%), while only 8.6% were under the age of 35 (N=1,997). This trend shifts with higher AMH levels; in the cohort with AMH levels exceeding 3 ng/ml (N=12,243), 47.2% of participants were under the age of 35 (N=5,773), 34.8% were aged 35 to 40 years (N=4,261), and 18.0% were aged between 40 and 45 years (N=2,209).
In all age groups, the data revealed that the retrieval of oocytes and formation of blastocysts declined once gonadotropin dosage surpassed a certain threshold. Notably, the gonadotropin dosage required to achieve the peak number of blastocysts and high-quality blastocysts was consistently lower than the dosage needed to maximize oocyte retrieval. This pattern became increasingly evident when analyzing blastocyst and high-quality blastocyst rates, where participants receiving gonadotropin doses exceeding 4,000 IU demonstrated the lowest rates of blastocyst formation and high-quality blastocyst production.
Similar analysis was conducted using serum FSH value instead of gonadotropin dosage. FSH values were recorded during the ovarian stimulation phase following gonadotropin administration. Similar to the observations in Figure 1, Figure 2 revealed that the number of retrieved oocytes and blastocysts reaches a peak at specific serum FSH values, after which a decline is observed. The number of oocytes retrieved was reached its peak at the serum FSH value was approximately 20 mIU/ml. In groups with higher AMH levels, the peak FSH concentration tended to be lower. Additionally, within the same AMH group, younger individuals achieved the maximum number of oocytes at lower FSH concentrations. Regarding the number of blastocysts, the peak FSH concentration decreased overall, showing a tendency to peak within the range of 15–20 mIU/ml. Particularly in the group under 35 years of age, the serum FSH concentration at peak was notably lower. Table 3 revealed the details of the results and indicates that, across most groups, the highest number of blastocysts and high-quality blastocysts were achieved at lower serum FSH values compared to those at the peak level where the highest number of oocytes were retrieved. When focusing on blastocyst formation rates and high-quality blastocyst rates, it was observed that in most groups, the highest rates occurred at an FSH level of 20 mIU/ml or below. The only exception was the group with AMH < 1 ng/ml and aged 40–45, where the highest blastocyst formation rates and high-quality blastocyst rates were observed at an FSH range of 25–30 mIU/ml.
| . | Mean | SD |
| age | 38.1 | 4.4 |
| AMH (ng/ml) | 2.1 | 2.6 |
| ART tempt | 3.9 | 4.6 |
| basal FSH (mIU/ml) | 6.2 | 7.3 |
| final FSH (mIU/ml) | 16.6 | 7.7 |
| Duration of stimulation (days) | 6.1 | 3.9 |
| Total gonadotropin dose (IU) | 1550 | 1350 |
Table 1: Baseline characteristics of patients, duration of gonadotropin stimulation, and total administered dose of gonadotropins.
| Total gonadotropin dose | Number of cycles | Oocytes retrieved ± SD | Number of cycles culture to blastocyst stage | Number of blastocysts ± SD | High-quality blastocysts ± SD | Blastocyst formation rate (%) | High quality blastulation rate (%) |
| AMH<1ng N=23,324)> | |||||||
| Age<35 N=1,997)> | |||||||
| <1000 | 1148 | 1.5 ± 0.1** | 667 | 0.6 ± 0.0** | 0.1 ± 0.0** | 61.5 | 15.2 |
| 1000-2000 | 310 | 3.7 ± 3.0** | 246 | 1.4 ± 1.4* | 0.4 ± 0.7 | 63.1 | 19.0 |
| 2000-2500 | 169 | 5.7 ± 3.6 | 146 | 1.7 ± 2.4 | 0.4 ± 0.6 | 55.3 | 12.0 |
| 2500-3000 | 137 | 5.9 ± 3.1 | 124 | 1.9 ± 2.1 | 0.5 ± 0.8 | 60.0 | 15.8 |
| 3000-4000 | 163 | 5.9 ± 4.1 | 147 | 1.9 ± 2.5 | 0.6 ± 0.9 | 64.1 | 20.2 |
| 4000≤ | 70 | 4.8 ± 2.5** | 66 | 1.1 ± 1.6** | 0.2 ± 0.5** | 51.0 | 6.7 |
| 35≤Age<40 N=6,993)> | |||||||
| <1000 | 4438 | 1.5 ± 1.3** | 2770 | 0.5 ± 0.6** | 0.1 ± 0.0** | 56.6 | 11.7 |
| 1000-2000 | 1008 | 3.0 ± 2.1** | 790 | 1.1 ± 1.4** | 0.3 ± 0.7* | 60.0 | 16.7 |
| 2000-2500 | 489 | 4.9 ± 3.1** | 434 | 1.5 ± 1.6 | 0.4 ± 0.6 | 55.2 | 15.5 |
| 2500-3000 | 357 | 5.6 ± 3.4 | 310 | 1.7 ± 1.5 | 0.4 ± 0.8 | 54.5 | 11.8 |
| 3000-4000 | 482 | 5.5 ± 3.4 | 427 | 1.4 ± 1.7 | 0.3 ± 0.9** | 51.8 | 9.3 |
| 4000≤ | 219 | 5.6 ± 3.2 | 208 | 1.4 ± 1.1 | 0.2 ± 0.5** | 51.3 | 5.7 |
| 40≤Age<45 (N=14,334) | |||||||
| ＜1000 | 10964 | 1.3 ± 1.1** | 6272 | 0.3 ± 0.5** | 0.0 ± 0.2** | 45.2 | 7.6 |
| 1000-2000 | 1882 | 2.5 ± 1.8** | 1405 | 0.7 ± 0.9** | 0.1 ± 0.4* | 50.6 | 10.7 |
| 2000-2500 | 485 | 3.7 ± 2.5** | 403 | 1.1 ± 1.3 | 0.2 ± 0.5 | 52.0 | 11.4 |
| 2500-3000 | 310 | 4.9 ± 3.2 | 264 | 1.3 ± 1.4 | 0.3 ± 0.6 | 47.4 | 10.2 |
| 3000-4000 | 451 | 4.9 ± 3.1 | 391 | 1.2 ± 1.3 | 0.2 ± 0.5* | 46.0 | 7.5 |
| 4000≤ | 242 | 4.7 ± 2.9 | 213 | 1.0 ± 1.2* | 0.1 ± 0.4** | 40.9 | 4.0 |
| 1≤AMH<3 (N=18,197) | |||||||
| Age<35 (N=3,738) | |||||||
| <1000 | 504 | 2.9 ± 0.1** | 374 | 1.0 ± 0.0** | 0.3 ± 0.0** | 60.9 | 19.1 |
| 1000-2000 | 640 | 8.0 ± 4.7** | 594 | 2.6 ± 2.3 | 0.8 ± 1.1 | 58.7 | 17.9 |
| 2000-2500 | 1046 | 9.0 ± 4.6* | 983 | 2.9 ± 3.2 | 0.9 ± 1.2 | 61.4 | 19.2 |
| 2500-3000 | 718 | 9.4 ± 4.7 | 681 | 2.8 ± 3.4 | 0.8 ± 1.2* | 58.0 | 15.3 |
| 3000-4000 | 701 | 9.4 ± 4.8 | 671 | 2.8 ± 3.3 | 0.6 ± 1.1** | 57.7 | 13.5 |
| 4000≤ | 129 | 7.7 ± 3.8** | 121 | 2.0 ± 2.8* | 0.4 ± 0.7** | 49.2 | 8.0 |
| 35≤Age<40 (N=6,485) | |||||||
| <1000 | 1134 | 2.5 ± 2.0** | 836 | 0.8 ± 0.9** | 0.2 ± 0.4** | 57.4 | 13.8 |
| 1000-2000 | 970 | 5.8 ± 3.8** | 842 | 1.9 ± 2.3** | 0.5 ± 0.8* | 59.9 | 16.7 |
| 2000-2500 | 1420 | 7.7 ± 4.2** | 1336 | 2.4 ± 2.3 | 0.7 ± 1.1 | 58.1 | 16.0 |
| 2500-3000 | 1141 | 8.3 ± 4.6 | 1066 | 2.4 ± 2.3 | 0.6 ± 0.9 | 55.4 | 13.0 |
| 3000-4000 | 1419 | 8.1 ± 4.5 | 1328 | 2.2 ± 2.4* | 0.5 ± 0.9* | 53.4 | 11.7 |
| 4000≤ | 401 | 7.3 ± 4.0** | 376 | 1.8 ± 1.8** | 0.4 ± 0.7** | 49.7 | 8.6 |
| 40≤Age<45 N=7,974)> | |||||||
| <1000 | 3057 | 2.0 ± 1.6 | 2195 | 0.4 ± 0.7** | 0.1 ± 0.2** | 46.1 | 7.0 |
| 1000-2000 | 1384 | 4.1 ± 2.9 | 1212 | 1.1 ± 1.3** | 0.2 ± 0.5* | 50.3 | 10.7 |
| 2000-2500 | 1024 | 6.4 ± 3.7 | 960 | 1.9 ± 1.8 | 0.4 ± 0.8 | 53.2 | 11.9 |
| 2500-3000 | 778 | 7.1 ± 4.0 | 732 | 1.9 ± 1.7 | 0.3 ± 0.7* | 49.5 | 9.1 |
| 3000-4000 | 1198 | 7.1 ± 4.1 | 1140 | 1.7 ± 1.7* | 0.3 ± 0.6* | 46.4 | 7.6 |
| 4000≤ | 533 | 6.8 ± 3.9 | 501 | 1.4 ± 1.5** | 0.2 ± 0.5** | 43.4 | 4.0 |
| 3≤AMH (N=12,243) | |||||||
| Age<35 (N=3,738) | |||||||
| <1000 | 904 | 5.9 ± 0.2** | 742 | 2.0 ± 0.1** | 0.6 ± 0.0** | 61.4 | 18.7 |
| 1000-2000 | 2309 | 13.6 ± 7.3 | 2199 | 4.2 ± 3.6 | 1.3 ± 1.8 | 60.7 | 18.5 |
| 2000-2500 | 1457 | 13.6 ± 7.1 | 1391 | 4.3 ± 4.8 | 1.3 ± 1.7 | 61.3 | 18.3 |
| 2500-3000 | 625 | 13.7 ± 6.7 | 594 | 4.2 ± 4.6 | 1.2 ± 1.6 | 58.8 | 17.0 |
| 3000-4000 | 427 | 14.3 ± 6.7 | 410 | 3.9 ± 4.9 | 1.0 ± 1.5* | 55.6 | 13.6 |
| 4000≤ | 51 | 13.2 ± 8.7 | 46 | 3.7 ± 5.3 | 0.9 ± 1.1* | 51.2 | 11.1 |
| 35≤Age<40 (N=4,261) | |||||||
| <1000 | 560 | 4.5 ± 4.2** | 448 | 1.4 ± 1.8** | 0.3 ± 0.7** | 58.0 | 14.5 |
| 1000-2000 | 1133 | 12.2 ± 7.1 | 1067 | 3.7 ± 3.6 | 1.0 ± 1.5 | 59.1 | 16.4 |
| 2000-2500 | 1193 | 12.5 ± 6.7 | 1127 | 3.8 ± 3.5 | 1.1 ± 1.4 | 58.5 | 16.3 |
| 2500-3000 | 712 | 12.4 ± 6.0 | 677 | 3.6 ± 3.3 | 0.8 ± 1.2** | 57.3 | 13.4 |
| 3000-4000 | 584 | 11.8 ± 6.3 | 565 | 3.2 ± 3.6 | 0.7 ± 1.1** | 53.3 | 12.0 |
| 4000≤ | 79 | 10.2 ± 5.4** | 74 | 2.5 ± 2.7** | 0.5 ± 1.0** | 49.1 | 8.1 |
| 40≤Age<45 (N=2,209) | |||||||
| <1000 | 444 | 2.8 ± 2.7** | 319 | 0.7 ± 1.2** | 0.1 ± 0.4** | 50.5 | 9.0 |
| 1000-2000 | 422 | 7.5 ± 5.3** | 389 | 2.0 ± 2.3** | 0.5 ± 1.0 | 48.8 | 12.9 |
| 2000-2500 | 430 | 10.3 ± 5.6 | 416 | 2.8 ± 2.3 | 0.6 ± 0.9 | 51.6 | 10.5 |
| 2500-3000 | 348 | 10.5 ± 6.0 | 334 | 2.7 ± 2.3 | 0.5 ± 0.9 | 49.8 | 9.9 |
| 3000-4000 | 431 | 10.4 ± 5.5 | 420 | 2.5 ± 2.2 | 0.5 ± 0.9 | 45.7 | 9.4 |
| 4000≤ | 134 | 9.8 ± 4.7 | 129 | 2.0 ± 1.8** | 0.3 ± 0.7** | 42.5 | 5.2 |
Table 2: The correlation between gonadotropin dosage and IVF outcomes was analyzed, categorized by AMH levels and age categories. Bold indicates the highest values among respective groups, based on comparative figures before rounding to one decimal place. High-quality blastocysts were defined according to Gardner's grading scale as 3BB or higher on day 5. An asterisk (*) indicates a statistically significant difference with a p-value of less than 0.05 when compared to the group indicated in bold, while a double asterisk (**) signifies a p-value of less than 0.01. The p-values were calculated using Welch’s t-test.
Figure 1: Scatter plots illustrating the correlation between total gonadotropin dose and number of oocytes retrieved and blastocysts, categorized by AMH levels and age groups. The data are organized according to gonadotropin dosage, with the average number of oocytes retrieved and blastocysts per 100 cases plotted to identify trends. The scatter plot includes approximated curves described by quadratic functions, with correlations represented by determination coefficients. Orange points indicate individuals under 35 years of age, green points represent those aged 35 ≤ Age < 40, and blue points correspond to those aged 40 ≤ Age < 45. Across all groups, oocyte retrieval reached its peak at certain gonadotropin dosages, followed by a decline. The table beneath the figure presents the mean numbers of oocytes retrieved and blastocysts formed, grouped by age and gonadotropin dosage. Bold values highlight peaks within each group.
Figure 2: Scatter plots analyzing the number of oocytes retrieved and blastocysts formed, classified according to AMH levels and age groups. The data are structured based on serum FSH values, recorded during the ovarian stimulation phase within three days of the final maturation trigger. Blue points indicate individuals under 35 years of age, green points represent those aged 35 ≤ Age < 40, and orange points correspond to those aged 40 ≤ Age < 45. The table beneath the figure presents the mean numbers of oocytes retrieved and blastocysts formed, grouped by age and gonadotropin dosage. Bold values highlight peaks within each group.
| Serum FSH value (mIU/ml) | Number of cycles | Oocytes retrieved ± SD | Number of cycles culture to blastocyst stage | Number of blastocysts ± SD | High-quality blastocysts ± SD | Blastocyst formation rate (%) | High quality blastulation rate (%) |
| AMH<1ng N=16,187)> | |||||||
| Age<35 N=1,465)> | |||||||
| ＜10 | 282 | 2.0 ± 0.1** | 667 | 0.9 ± 0.0** | 0.2 ± 0.0** | 69.0 | 19.2 |
| 10-15 | 383 | 3.5 ± 4.6** | 246 | 1.4 ± 1.7** | 0.4 ± 0.7** | 63.5 | 16.7 |
| 15-20 | 349 | 4.9 ± 5.8 | 146 | 2.0 ± 3.5 | 0.6 ± 1.1 | 64.2 | 19.8 |
| 20-25 | 223 | 5.1 ± 4.9 | 124 | 1.7 ± 2.0 | 0.5 ± 0.9 | 56.8 | 17.8 |
| 25-30 | 117 | 4.0 ± 4.4* | 147 | 1.5 ± 2.8 | 0.4 ± 0.8 | 59.8 | 16.9 |
| 30≤ | 111 | 2.5 ± 3.4** | 66 | 1.1 ± 2.2** | 0.3 ± 0.5** | 52.5 | 10.4 |
| 35≤Age<40 N=4,541)> | |||||||
| ＜10 | 1192 | 1.6 ± 1.8** | 2770 | 0.6 ± 0.7** | 0.1 ± 0.3** | 58.5 | 11.0 |
| 10-15 | 1211 | 2.3 ± 2.6** | 790 | 0.8 ± 1.1** | 0.2 ± 0.4** | 59.0 | 14.0 |
| 15-20 | 942 | 2.8 ± 3.1** | 434 | 1.0 ± 1.2 | 0.3 ± 0.5 | 55.1 | 14.0 |
| 20-25 | 581 | 3.5 ± 3.7 | 310 | 1.2 ± 1.4 | 0.3 ± 0.6 | 54.9 | 12.7 |
| 25-30 | 330 | 3.5 ± 3.6 | 427 | 1.2 ± 1.5 | 0.3 ± 0.6 | 52.4 | 12.2 |
| 30≤ | 285 | 2.1 ± 2.7** | 208 | 0.7 ± 0.8** | 0.1 ± 0.2** | 43.5 | 4.8 |
| 40≤Age<45 N=10,181)> | |||||||
| ＜10 | 3260 | 1.3 ± 1.1** | 6272 | 0.3 ± 0.7** | 0.0 ± 0.2** | 45.9 | 7.2 |
| 10-15 | 2913 | 1.7 ± 1.5** | 1405 | 0.4 ± 1.1** | 0.1 ± 0.2** | 44.9 | 9.0 |
| 15-20 | 1852 | 1.9 ± 2.0** | 403 | 0.5 ± 1.2 | 0.1 ± 0.2** | 44.7 | 8.1 |
| 20-25 | 1058 | 2.2 ± 2.6 | 264 | 0.7 ± 1.4 | 0.1 ± 0.3 | 45.6 | 7.5 |
| 25-30 | 496 | 1.8 ± 2.1** | 391 | 0.6 ± 1.5 | 0.1 ± 0.3 | 46.1 | 10.9 |
| 30≤ | 602 | 1.3 ± 1.8** | 213 | 0.4 ± 0.8* | 0.0 ± 0.1** | 43.3 | 2.7 |
| 1≤AMH<3 N=16,430)> | |||||||
| Age<35 N=3,060)> | |||||||
| ＜10 | 167 | 3.1 ± 0.1** | 374 | 1.1 ± 0.0** | 0.4 ± 0.0** | 61.5 | 20.8 |
| 10-15 | 431 | 6.9 ± 5.5** | 594 | 2.1 ± 2.0** | 0.6 ± 1.0** | 57.8 | 17.4 |
| 15-20 | 1007 | 8.2 ± 4.8* | 983 | 2.8 ± 3.2 | 0.9 ± 1.3 | 63.1 | 20.2 |
| 20-25 | 979 | 8.6 ± 4.5 | 681 | 2.6 ± 2.9 | 0.7 ± 1.1 | 58.7 | 16.4 |
| 25-30 | 342 | 8.0 ± 4.5* | 671 | 2.6 ± 3.3 | 0.7 ± 1.1 | 61.9 | 17.1 |
| 30≤ | 134 | 7.6 ± 4.1** | 121 | 2.0 ± 2.6** | 0.3 ± 0.6** | 51.7 | 7.4 |
| 35≤Age<40 N=5,889)> | |||||||
| ＜10 | 578 | 2.1 ± 2.1** | 836 | 0.6 ± 0.9** | 0.2 ± 0.4** | 52.9 | 14.5 |
| 10-15 | 909 | 4.4 ± 3.7** | 842 | 1.5 ± 1.7** | 0.4 ± 0.8** | 58.5 | 17.2 |
| 15-20 | 1737 | 6.5 ± 4.2** | 1336 | 2.1 ± 2.0 | 0.6 ± 1.0 | 58.3 | 16.0 |
| 20-25 | 1687 | 7.0 ± 4.1 | 1066 | 2.0 ± 1.8 | 0.5 ± 0.9** | 55.5 | 14.1 |
| 25-30 | 671 | 6.8 ± 4.1 | 1328 | 1.9 ± 1.8** | 0.4 ± 0.8** | 52.6 | 12.2 |
| 30≤ | 307 | 6.6 ± 4.2** | 376 | 1.7 ± 1.7** | 0.3 ± 0.6** | 51.3 | 7.0 |
| 40≤Age<45 N=7,481)> | |||||||
| ＜10 | 3057 | 1.8 ± 1.5** | 2195 | 0.4 ± 0.9** | 0.1 ± 0.2** | 46.1 | 7.0 |
| 10-15 | 1384 | 3.0 ± 2.5** | 1212 | 0.7 ± 1.7** | 0.1 ± 0.4* | 50.3 | 10.7 |
| 15-20 | 1024 | 4.8 ± 3.7** | 960 | 1.4 ± 2.0* | 0.3 ± 0.6 | 53.2 | 11.9 |
| 20-25 | 778 | 5.7 ± 3.9 | 732 | 1.5 ± 1.8 | 0.3 ± 0.7 | 49.5 | 9.1 |
| 25-30 | 1198 | 5.4 ± 3.6 | 1140 | 1.5 ± 1.8 | 0.2 ± 0.5* | 46.4 | 7.6 |
| 30≤ | 533 | 5.1 ± 3.7* | 501 | 1.3 ± 1.7** | 0.2 ± 0.5** | 43.4 | 4.0 |
| 3≤AMH (N=13,432) | |||||||
| Age<35 N=5,784)> | |||||||
| ＜10 | 904 | 8.6 ± 0.3** | 742 | 3.0 ± 0.1** | 1.0 ± 0.1** | 61.4 | 18.7 |
| 10-15 | 2309 | 12.8 ± 7.5 | 2199 | 4.1 ± 3.6 | 1.3 ± 1.8 | 60.7 | 18.5 |
| 15-20 | 1457 | 13.2 ± 6.9 | 1391 | 4.0 ± 4.7 | 1.2 ± 1.7 | 61.3 | 18.3 |
| 20-25 | 625 | 13.0 ± 6.6 | 594 | 3.8 ± 4.0* | 1.1 ± 1.6 | 58.8 | 17.0 |
| 25-30 | 427 | 12.1 ± 6.2* | 410 | 3.3 ± 4.0** | 1.1 ± 1.7 | 55.6 | 13.6 |
| 30≤ | 51 | 11.4 ± 6.7* | 46 | 3.1 ± 4.2* | 0.7 ± 1.3** | 51.2 | 11.1 |
| 35≤Age<40 N=4,714)> | |||||||
| ＜10 | 560 | 6.3 ± 6.3** | 448 | 1.8 ± 2.2** | 0.5 ± 1.0** | 58.0 | 14.5 |
| 10-15 | 1133 | 11.0 ± 7.2** | 1067 | 3.3 ± 3.1 | 0.9 ± 1.5 | 59.1 | 16.4 |
| 15-20 | 1193 | 12.0 ± 6.6 | 1127 | 3.6 ± 3.0 | 1.0 ± 1.3 | 58.5 | 16.3 |
| 20-25 | 712 | 11.0 ± 6.0** | 677 | 3.1 ± 2.6** | 0.8 ± 1.2* | 57.3 | 13.4 |
| 25-30 | 584 | 10.0 ± 5.3** | 565 | 2.8 ± 2.3** | 0.6 ± 1.0** | 53.3 | 12.0 |
| 30≤ | 79 | 8.5 ± 4.2** | 74 | 2.3 ± 1.7** | 0.5 ± 0.8** | 49.1 | 8.1 |
| 40≤Age<45 N=2,934)> | |||||||
| ＜10 | 444 | 2.9 ± 2.9** | 319 | 0.8 ± 2.2** | 0.1 ± 0.5** | 50.5 | 9.0 |
| 10-15 | 422 | 6.5 ± 5.7** | 389 | 1.8 ± 3.1** | 0.5 ± 0.9 | 48.8 | 12.9 |
| 15-20 | 430 | 8.8 ± 5.6 | 416 | 2.2 ± 3.0 | 0.5 ± 0.9 | 51.6 | 10.5 |
| 20-25 | 348 | 9.2 ± 5.1 | 334 | 2.3 ± 2.6 | 0.5 ± 0.9 | 49.8 | 9.9 |
| 25-30 | 431 | 8.7 ± 4.4 | 420 | 2.0 ± 2.3 | 0.4 ± 0.8* | 45.7 | 9.4 |
| 30≤ | 134 | 7.8 ± 4.5** | 129 | 1.8 ± 1.7* | 0.2 ± 0.6** | 42.5 | 5.2 |
Table 3: The correlation between serum FSH after gonadotropin administration and IVF outcomes, segmented by AMH levels and age groups. This analysis includes cases where serum FSH was measured within three days of the final maturation trigger. Bold indicates the highest values among respective groups, based on comparative figures before rounding to one decimal place. An asterisk (*) indicates a statistically significant difference with a p-value of less than 0.05 when compared to the group indicated in bold, while a double asterisk (**) signifies a p-value of less than 0.01. The p-values were calculated using Welch’s t-test.
The number of oocytes retrieved is one of the critical factors contributing to the success of IVF, and numerous studies have reported that an increase in the number of oocytes retrieved is associated with higher pregnancy rates [1]. Various factors influence the number of oocytes retrieved, with the most significant being the patient's age and ovarian reserve, as indicated by their AMH levels. In addition to these patient-specific characteristics, the dosage of gonadotropins plays a pivotal role, since gonadotropins facilitate the growth and development of multiple follicles by bypassing the limitations of natural physiological processes [20]. Our study showed that up to certain thresholds, the dosage of gonadotropin and serum FSH levels were positively correlated with an increase in the number of oocytes retrieved and blastocysts. However, this correlation declined after reaching peak values. Several researchers have reported similar findings. Clark et al. observed a negative correlation between gonadotropin dosage and the number of oocytes retrieved [21]. Zielinski et al. noted that for patients predicted to produce 4–8 mature oocytes (MII), an increase in gonadotropin dosage resulted in a decline in oocyte count. Conversely, patients with low [1–3] and high [9–12] MII predictions achieved optimal results when administered a daily dose of 225 IU [22]. These observations suggest that appropriate gonadotropin doses vary among individuals based on ovarian reserve.
The variability in appropriate doses of gonadotropin among individuals is attributed to a range of factors. In addition to above mentioned AMH value, age and body weight are also considered important factors. In this study, it was observed that the total gonadotropin dose necessary to optimize the number of blastocysts is lower in younger cohorts compared to patients aged 40 or older with equivalent AMH levels. Similarly, Leijdekkers et al. reported that female age and body weight modified the effect of individualized FSH dosing [23]. It has been suggested that female age and body weight contribute to such heterogeneity. The ovarian reserve quantitatively and qualitatively diminishes with advancing age [24], and serum FSH levels appear to have an inverse association with body weight [25]. Based on these facts, fixed daily dose determined by an algorithm based on patient’s AMH and weight are used in follitropin delta [26, 27]. In addition, recent study reported the dose adjustment by starting dose calculator based on age and AMH showed significant concordance rate between predicted and actual number of oocytes [28]. These efforts will assist in determining the suitable initial dose for most patients. However, there remain ongoing concerns regarding a subset of patients who fail to achieve the expected number of oocytes in clinical practice. This discrepancy may be attributed to fluctuations in FSH activity between different product batches and variations in individual FSH metabolism. Alviggi et al. reported that a higher FSH consumption is expected in homozygotes for the A allele of the FSHR (rs1394205) polymorphism than carriers of the G allele [29]. The evidence suggests that determining the appropriate gonadotropin dose can be challenging in certain cases and may require adjustment following administration.
In order to adjust individual differences in the optimal dosage of gonadotropins, serum FSH concentration, is considered a useful reference for determining the appropriate gonadotropin dosage. In this study, the number of oocytes retrieved reached its peak at the serum FSH value was approximately 20 mIU/ml. However, when focusing on blastocyst formation rates and high-quality blastocyst rates, it was observed that in most groups, the highest rates occurred at an FSH value of below 20 mIU/ml. It is clear that the number of blastocysts is more directly associated with successful pregnancy outcomes compared to the number of oocytes retrieved. Consequently, it is considered optimal to establish the target serum FSH concentration within the range of 15–20 mIU/ml, as this interval consistently corresponds to the highest blastocyst yield across most groups. Similar findings have also been reported by Arce et al., who demonstrated that although increasing the dosage of FSH preparations results in a higher number of oocytes retrieved, the contribution to the number of blastocysts and pregnancy rates is limited. This aligns with the results of the present study and provides an important perspective when determining the appropriate dose of ovulation induction agents [30].
The important point of the study is FSH above threshold resulted in the decrease in the number of oocytes retrieved. Moreover, the dosage and serum FSH levels optimized for blastocyst formation were lower than those required to maximize oocyte retrieval. These facts indicate that excessive FSH may have the detrimental effect on oocytes. A possible explanation is the altered expression of FSH receptor. It is reported that continuous exposure to high concentrations of FSH result in decreased FSHR expression, leading to reduced ovarian response [31]. Furthermore, Clark et al. stated that an analysis of transcription profiles in granulosa cells, cumulus cells, and oocytes demonstrated that the excessive administration of FSH resulted in deviations from normal gene expression patterns to abnormal patterns with increasing severity of follicular abnormality with the excessive dose [32]. Premature luteinization is another potential mechanism that has been documented in women following the administration of high doses of FSH during ovarian stimulation, resulting in significant disruptions to the follicular microenvironment [33]. This phenomenon is reported to be induced by the stimulatory effect of exogenous FSH on the expression of other enzymes required for estrogen synthesis. It stimulates 3β-HSD (3β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase) expression and progesterone biosynthesis in human granulosa cells and ovarian tissue samples, thus leading to an increase in the conversion of pregnenolone to progesterone [34]. High concentrations of serum progesterone have been shown to inhibit the proliferation of granulosa cells, thereby reducing the growth rate of follicles. This suggests that progesterone produced with excessive FSH decreases the oocyte yields [35]. In fact, bovine studies demonstrated that superovulation with high FSH doses did not increase the number of ovulatory sized follicles produced and decreased ovulation rate relative to lower doses [36]. Regarding oocyte quality, Bernstein et al. introduced the “FSH OOToxicity Hypothesis,” suggesting that elevated FSH levels may result in chromosomal abnormalities and spindle misalignment, thereby potentially reducing oocyte quality [37]. Similarly, Dursun et al. indicated that FSH might impair cytoskeletal dynamics and decrease the accuracy of meiosis [38]. Combelles et al. also observed that excessive FSH signaling may lead to the degeneration of transzonal projections (TZPs), possibly hindering communication between oocytes and surrounding cells [39]. These reports indicate that excessive FSH deteriorate the oocyte quality and support the findings of our present study.
The main limitation of this study is its retrospective design, causing variations in ovarian responses within the same AMH and age groups. Therefore, selection bias may exist between groups with similar AMH levels when determining the appropriate FSH dosage. Thus, prospective studies are needed to accurately determine gonadotropin dosage based on different patient backgrounds.
Furthermore, this study encompassed both urinary HMG and recombinant FSH, which might exhibit variations in FSH activity despite identical gonadotropin dosages. Consequently, future research under a uniform gonadotropin product may be advisable. Nonetheless, our investigation not only considered the gonadotropin dosage but also measured serum FSH levels. Therefore, this limitation has been addressed. Finally, given that this study was conducted at a single institution with 99% of participants being Asian, predominantly Japanese, generalizing the findings to patient populations of other racial backgrounds may be difficult.
Gonadotropin dosage and serum FSH beyond a threshold offers limited benefit and the dosage and serum FSH levels optimized for blastocyst formation were lower than those required to maximize oocyte retrieval. Individualized stimulation strategies considering age, AMH, and serum FSH levels are recommended for optimizing outcomes.
Conflict of interest: Noritoshi Enatsu, Yihsien Enatsu, Kunihiro Enatsu, Ai Yamada, Yuri Mizusawa, Eri Okamoto, Shoji Kokeguchi, Hiroaki Sibahara and Masahide Shiotani declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human rights statement and informed consent: All patients were well informed and written informed consent was obtained prior to the treatment period.
Animal rights: This article does not contain any studies with animal subjects performed by the any of the authors.
The statement of approval from Institutional Review Board: All procedures in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Ethical Committee in accordance with the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki 1964 and its later amendments. This study was approved by Ethical Committee of Hanabusa Women's Clinic consists of members chosen by our institute and third-party medical institute (approval number; 2025-05).
Declaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process: During the preparation of this work, the author utilized Microsoft Copilot (GPT-4.5) to enhance the readability of the English text. Following the use of this tool, the author meticulously reviewed and edited the content as necessary, assuming full responsibility for the final publication.
Clearly Auctoresonline and particularly Psychology and Mental Health Care Journal is dedicated to improving health care services for individuals and populations. The editorial boards' ability to efficiently recognize and share the global importance of health literacy with a variety of stakeholders. Auctoresonline publishing platform can be used to facilitate of optimal client-based services and should be added to health care professionals' repertoire of evidence-based health care resources.
Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Intervention The submission and review process was adequate. However I think that the publication total value should have been enlightened in early fases. Thank you for all.
Journal of Women Health Care and Issues By the present mail, I want to say thank to you and tour colleagues for facilitating my published article. Specially thank you for the peer review process, support from the editorial office. I appreciate positively the quality of your journal.
Journal of Clinical Research and Reports I would be very delighted to submit my testimonial regarding the reviewer board and the editorial office. The reviewer board were accurate and helpful regarding any modifications for my manuscript. And the editorial office were very helpful and supportive in contacting and monitoring with any update and offering help. It was my pleasure to contribute with your promising Journal and I am looking forward for more collaboration.
We would like to thank the Journal of Thoracic Disease and Cardiothoracic Surgery because of the services they provided us for our articles. The peer-review process was done in a very excellent time manner, and the opinions of the reviewers helped us to improve our manuscript further. The editorial office had an outstanding correspondence with us and guided us in many ways. During a hard time of the pandemic that is affecting every one of us tremendously, the editorial office helped us make everything easier for publishing scientific work. Hope for a more scientific relationship with your Journal.
The peer-review process which consisted high quality queries on the paper. I did answer six reviewers’ questions and comments before the paper was accepted. The support from the editorial office is excellent.
Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. I had the experience of publishing a research article recently. The whole process was simple from submission to publication. The reviewers made specific and valuable recommendations and corrections that improved the quality of my publication. I strongly recommend this Journal.
Dr. Katarzyna Byczkowska My testimonial covering: "The peer review process is quick and effective. The support from the editorial office is very professional and friendly. Quality of the Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on cardiology that is useful for other professionals in the field.
Thank you most sincerely, with regard to the support you have given in relation to the reviewing process and the processing of my article entitled "Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of The Prostate Gland: A Review and Update" for publication in your esteemed Journal, Journal of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics". The editorial team has been very supportive.
Testimony of Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology: work with your Reviews has been a educational and constructive experience. The editorial office were very helpful and supportive. It was a pleasure to contribute to your Journal.
Dr. Bernard Terkimbi Utoo, I am happy to publish my scientific work in Journal of Women Health Care and Issues (JWHCI). The manuscript submission was seamless and peer review process was top notch. I was amazed that 4 reviewers worked on the manuscript which made it a highly technical, standard and excellent quality paper. I appreciate the format and consideration for the APC as well as the speed of publication. It is my pleasure to continue with this scientific relationship with the esteem JWHCI.
This is an acknowledgment for peer reviewers, editorial board of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. They show a lot of consideration for us as publishers for our research article “Evaluation of the different factors associated with side effects of COVID-19 vaccination on medical students, Mutah university, Al-Karak, Jordan”, in a very professional and easy way. This journal is one of outstanding medical journal.
Dear Hao Jiang, to Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing We greatly appreciate the efficient, professional and rapid processing of our paper by your team. If there is anything else we should do, please do not hesitate to let us know. On behalf of my co-authors, we would like to express our great appreciation to editor and reviewers.
As an author who has recently published in the journal "Brain and Neurological Disorders". I am delighted to provide a testimonial on the peer review process, editorial office support, and the overall quality of the journal. The peer review process at Brain and Neurological Disorders is rigorous and meticulous, ensuring that only high-quality, evidence-based research is published. The reviewers are experts in their fields, and their comments and suggestions were constructive and helped improve the quality of my manuscript. The review process was timely and efficient, with clear communication from the editorial office at each stage. The support from the editorial office was exceptional throughout the entire process. The editorial staff was responsive, professional, and always willing to help. They provided valuable guidance on formatting, structure, and ethical considerations, making the submission process seamless. Moreover, they kept me informed about the status of my manuscript and provided timely updates, which made the process less stressful. The journal Brain and Neurological Disorders is of the highest quality, with a strong focus on publishing cutting-edge research in the field of neurology. The articles published in this journal are well-researched, rigorously peer-reviewed, and written by experts in the field. The journal maintains high standards, ensuring that readers are provided with the most up-to-date and reliable information on brain and neurological disorders. In conclusion, I had a wonderful experience publishing in Brain and Neurological Disorders. The peer review process was thorough, the editorial office provided exceptional support, and the journal's quality is second to none. I would highly recommend this journal to any researcher working in the field of neurology and brain disorders.
Dear Agrippa Hilda, Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery, Editorial Coordinator, I trust this message finds you well. I want to extend my appreciation for considering my article for publication in your esteemed journal. I am pleased to provide a testimonial regarding the peer review process and the support received from your editorial office. The peer review process for my paper was carried out in a highly professional and thorough manner. The feedback and comments provided by the authors were constructive and very useful in improving the quality of the manuscript. This rigorous assessment process undoubtedly contributes to the high standards maintained by your journal.
International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. I strongly recommend to consider submitting your work to this high-quality journal. The support and availability of the Editorial staff is outstanding and the review process was both efficient and rigorous.
Thank you very much for publishing my Research Article titled “Comparing Treatment Outcome Of Allergic Rhinitis Patients After Using Fluticasone Nasal Spray And Nasal Douching" in the Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology. As Medical Professionals we are immensely benefited from study of various informative Articles and Papers published in this high quality Journal. I look forward to enriching my knowledge by regular study of the Journal and contribute my future work in the field of ENT through the Journal for use by the medical fraternity. The support from the Editorial office was excellent and very prompt. I also welcome the comments received from the readers of my Research Article.
Dear Erica Kelsey, Editorial Coordinator of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics Our team is very satisfied with the processing of our paper by your journal. That was fast, efficient, rigorous, but without unnecessary complications. We appreciated the very short time between the submission of the paper and its publication on line on your site.
I am very glad to say that the peer review process is very successful and fast and support from the Editorial Office. Therefore, I would like to continue our scientific relationship for a long time. And I especially thank you for your kindly attention towards my article. Have a good day!
"We recently published an article entitled “Influence of beta-Cyclodextrins upon the Degradation of Carbofuran Derivatives under Alkaline Conditions" in the Journal of “Pesticides and Biofertilizers” to show that the cyclodextrins protect the carbamates increasing their half-life time in the presence of basic conditions This will be very helpful to understand carbofuran behaviour in the analytical, agro-environmental and food areas. We greatly appreciated the interaction with the editor and the editorial team; we were particularly well accompanied during the course of the revision process, since all various steps towards publication were short and without delay".
I would like to express my gratitude towards you process of article review and submission. I found this to be very fair and expedient. Your follow up has been excellent. I have many publications in national and international journal and your process has been one of the best so far. Keep up the great work.
We are grateful for this opportunity to provide a glowing recommendation to the Journal of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. We found that the editorial team were very supportive, helpful, kept us abreast of timelines and over all very professional in nature. The peer review process was rigorous, efficient and constructive that really enhanced our article submission. The experience with this journal remains one of our best ever and we look forward to providing future submissions in the near future.
I am very pleased to serve as EBM of the journal, I hope many years of my experience in stem cells can help the journal from one way or another. As we know, stem cells hold great potential for regenerative medicine, which are mostly used to promote the repair response of diseased, dysfunctional or injured tissue using stem cells or their derivatives. I think Stem Cell Research and Therapeutics International is a great platform to publish and share the understanding towards the biology and translational or clinical application of stem cells.
I would like to give my testimony in the support I have got by the peer review process and to support the editorial office where they were of asset to support young author like me to be encouraged to publish their work in your respected journal and globalize and share knowledge across the globe. I really give my great gratitude to your journal and the peer review including the editorial office.
I am delighted to publish our manuscript entitled "A Perspective on Cocaine Induced Stroke - Its Mechanisms and Management" in the Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. The peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal are excellent. The manuscripts published are of high quality and of excellent scientific value. I recommend this journal very much to colleagues.
Dr.Tania Muñoz, My experience as researcher and author of a review article in The Journal Clinical Cardiology and Interventions has been very enriching and stimulating. The editorial team is excellent, performs its work with absolute responsibility and delivery. They are proactive, dynamic and receptive to all proposals. Supporting at all times the vast universe of authors who choose them as an option for publication. The team of review specialists, members of the editorial board, are brilliant professionals, with remarkable performance in medical research and scientific methodology. Together they form a frontline team that consolidates the JCCI as a magnificent option for the publication and review of high-level medical articles and broad collective interest. I am honored to be able to share my review article and open to receive all your comments.
“The peer review process of JPMHC is quick and effective. Authors are benefited by good and professional reviewers with huge experience in the field of psychology and mental health. The support from the editorial office is very professional. People to contact to are friendly and happy to help and assist any query authors might have. Quality of the Journal is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on mental health that is useful for other professionals in the field”.
Dear editorial department: On behalf of our team, I hereby certify the reliability and superiority of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews in the peer review process, editorial support, and journal quality. Firstly, the peer review process of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is rigorous, fair, transparent, fast, and of high quality. The editorial department invites experts from relevant fields as anonymous reviewers to review all submitted manuscripts. These experts have rich academic backgrounds and experience, and can accurately evaluate the academic quality, originality, and suitability of manuscripts. The editorial department is committed to ensuring the rigor of the peer review process, while also making every effort to ensure a fast review cycle to meet the needs of authors and the academic community. Secondly, the editorial team of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is composed of a group of senior scholars and professionals with rich experience and professional knowledge in related fields. The editorial department is committed to assisting authors in improving their manuscripts, ensuring their academic accuracy, clarity, and completeness. Editors actively collaborate with authors, providing useful suggestions and feedback to promote the improvement and development of the manuscript. We believe that the support of the editorial department is one of the key factors in ensuring the quality of the journal. Finally, the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is renowned for its high- quality articles and strict academic standards. The editorial department is committed to publishing innovative and academically valuable research results to promote the development and progress of related fields. The International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is reasonably priced and ensures excellent service and quality ratio, allowing authors to obtain high-level academic publishing opportunities in an affordable manner. I hereby solemnly declare that the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews has a high level of credibility and superiority in terms of peer review process, editorial support, reasonable fees, and journal quality. Sincerely, Rui Tao.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions I testity the covering of the peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, we deeply appreciate the interest shown in our work and its publication. It has been a true pleasure to collaborate with you. The peer review process, as well as the support provided by the editorial office, have been exceptional, and the quality of the journal is very high, which was a determining factor in our decision to publish with you.
The peer reviewers process is quick and effective, the supports from editorial office is excellent, the quality of journal is high. I would like to collabroate with Internatioanl journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews journal clinically in the future time.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude for the trust placed in our team for the publication in your journal. It has been a true pleasure to collaborate with you on this project. I am pleased to inform you that both the peer review process and the attention from the editorial coordination have been excellent. Your team has worked with dedication and professionalism to ensure that your publication meets the highest standards of quality. We are confident that this collaboration will result in mutual success, and we are eager to see the fruits of this shared effort.
Dear Dr. Jessica Magne, Editorial Coordinator 0f Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, I hope this message finds you well. I want to express my utmost gratitude for your excellent work and for the dedication and speed in the publication process of my article titled "Navigating Innovation: Qualitative Insights on Using Technology for Health Education in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients." I am very satisfied with the peer review process, the support from the editorial office, and the quality of the journal. I hope we can maintain our scientific relationship in the long term.
Dear Monica Gissare, - Editorial Coordinator of Nutrition and Food Processing. ¨My testimony with you is truly professional, with a positive response regarding the follow-up of the article and its review, you took into account my qualities and the importance of the topic¨.
Dear Dr. Jessica Magne, Editorial Coordinator 0f Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, The review process for the article “The Handling of Anti-aggregants and Anticoagulants in the Oncologic Heart Patient Submitted to Surgery” was extremely rigorous and detailed. From the initial submission to the final acceptance, the editorial team at the “Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions” demonstrated a high level of professionalism and dedication. The reviewers provided constructive and detailed feedback, which was essential for improving the quality of our work. Communication was always clear and efficient, ensuring that all our questions were promptly addressed. The quality of the “Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions” is undeniable. It is a peer-reviewed, open-access publication dedicated exclusively to disseminating high-quality research in the field of clinical cardiology and cardiovascular interventions. The journal's impact factor is currently under evaluation, and it is indexed in reputable databases, which further reinforces its credibility and relevance in the scientific field. I highly recommend this journal to researchers looking for a reputable platform to publish their studies.
Dear Editorial Coordinator of the Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing! "I would like to thank the Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing for including and publishing my article. The peer review process was very quick, movement and precise. The Editorial Board has done an extremely conscientious job with much help, valuable comments and advices. I find the journal very valuable from a professional point of view, thank you very much for allowing me to be part of it and I would like to participate in the future!”
Dealing with The Journal of Neurology and Neurological Surgery was very smooth and comprehensive. The office staff took time to address my needs and the response from editors and the office was prompt and fair. I certainly hope to publish with this journal again.Their professionalism is apparent and more than satisfactory. Susan Weiner
My Testimonial Covering as fellowing: Lin-Show Chin. The peer reviewers process is quick and effective, the supports from editorial office is excellent, the quality of journal is high. I would like to collabroate with Internatioanl journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews.
My experience publishing in Psychology and Mental Health Care was exceptional. The peer review process was rigorous and constructive, with reviewers providing valuable insights that helped enhance the quality of our work. The editorial team was highly supportive and responsive, making the submission process smooth and efficient. The journal's commitment to high standards and academic rigor makes it a respected platform for quality research. I am grateful for the opportunity to publish in such a reputable journal.
My experience publishing in International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews was exceptional. I Come forth to Provide a Testimonial Covering the Peer Review Process and the editorial office for the Professional and Impartial Evaluation of the Manuscript.
I would like to offer my testimony in the support. I have received through the peer review process and support the editorial office where they are to support young authors like me, encourage them to publish their work in your esteemed journals, and globalize and share knowledge globally. I really appreciate your journal, peer review, and editorial office.
Dear Agrippa Hilda- Editorial Coordinator of Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery, "The peer review process was very quick and of high quality, which can also be seen in the articles in the journal. The collaboration with the editorial office was very good."
I would like to express my sincere gratitude for the support and efficiency provided by the editorial office throughout the publication process of my article, “Delayed Vulvar Metastases from Rectal Carcinoma: A Case Report.” I greatly appreciate the assistance and guidance I received from your team, which made the entire process smooth and efficient. The peer review process was thorough and constructive, contributing to the overall quality of the final article. I am very grateful for the high level of professionalism and commitment shown by the editorial staff, and I look forward to maintaining a long-term collaboration with the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews.
To Dear Erin Aust, I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation for the opportunity to have my work published in this esteemed journal. The entire publication process was smooth and well-organized, and I am extremely satisfied with the final result. The Editorial Team demonstrated the utmost professionalism, providing prompt and insightful feedback throughout the review process. Their clear communication and constructive suggestions were invaluable in enhancing my manuscript, and their meticulous attention to detail and dedication to quality are truly commendable. Additionally, the support from the Editorial Office was exceptional. From the initial submission to the final publication, I was guided through every step of the process with great care and professionalism. The team's responsiveness and assistance made the entire experience both easy and stress-free. I am also deeply impressed by the quality and reputation of the journal. It is an honor to have my research featured in such a respected publication, and I am confident that it will make a meaningful contribution to the field.
"I am grateful for the opportunity of contributing to [International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews] and for the rigorous review process that enhances the quality of research published in your esteemed journal. I sincerely appreciate the time and effort of your team who have dedicatedly helped me in improvising changes and modifying my manuscript. The insightful comments and constructive feedback provided have been invaluable in refining and strengthening my work".
I thank the ‘Journal of Clinical Research and Reports’ for accepting this article for publication. This is a rigorously peer reviewed journal which is on all major global scientific data bases. I note the review process was prompt, thorough and professionally critical. It gave us an insight into a number of important scientific/statistical issues. The review prompted us to review the relevant literature again and look at the limitations of the study. The peer reviewers were open, clear in the instructions and the editorial team was very prompt in their communication. This journal certainly publishes quality research articles. I would recommend the journal for any future publications.
Dear Jessica Magne, with gratitude for the joint work. Fast process of receiving and processing the submitted scientific materials in “Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions”. High level of competence of the editors with clear and correct recommendations and ideas for enriching the article.
We found the peer review process quick and positive in its input. The support from the editorial officer has been very agile, always with the intention of improving the article and taking into account our subsequent corrections.
My article, titled 'No Way Out of the Smartphone Epidemic Without Considering the Insights of Brain Research,' has been republished in the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. The review process was seamless and professional, with the editors being both friendly and supportive. I am deeply grateful for their efforts.
To Dear Erin Aust – Editorial Coordinator of Journal of General Medicine and Clinical Practice! I declare that I am absolutely satisfied with your work carried out with great competence in following the manuscript during the various stages from its receipt, during the revision process to the final acceptance for publication. Thank Prof. Elvira Farina
Dear Jessica, and the super professional team of the ‘Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions’ I am sincerely grateful to the coordinated work of the journal team for the no problem with the submission of my manuscript: “Cardiometabolic Disorders in A Pregnant Woman with Severe Preeclampsia on the Background of Morbid Obesity (Case Report).” The review process by 5 experts was fast, and the comments were professional, which made it more specific and academic, and the process of publication and presentation of the article was excellent. I recommend that my colleagues publish articles in this journal, and I am interested in further scientific cooperation. Sincerely and best wishes, Dr. Oleg Golyanovskiy.
Dear Ashley Rosa, Editorial Coordinator of the journal - Psychology and Mental Health Care. " The process of obtaining publication of my article in the Psychology and Mental Health Journal was positive in all areas. The peer review process resulted in a number of valuable comments, the editorial process was collaborative and timely, and the quality of this journal has been quickly noticed, resulting in alternative journals contacting me to publish with them." Warm regards, Susan Anne Smith, PhD. Australian Breastfeeding Association.
Dear Jessica Magne, Editorial Coordinator, Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, Auctores Publishing LLC. I appreciate the journal (JCCI) editorial office support, the entire team leads were always ready to help, not only on technical front but also on thorough process. Also, I should thank dear reviewers’ attention to detail and creative approach to teach me and bring new insights by their comments. Surely, more discussions and introduction of other hemodynamic devices would provide better prevention and management of shock states. Your efforts and dedication in presenting educational materials in this journal are commendable. Best wishes from, Farahnaz Fallahian.
Dear Maria Emerson, Editorial Coordinator, International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews, Auctores Publishing LLC. I am delighted to have published our manuscript, "Acute Colonic Pseudo-Obstruction (ACPO): A rare but serious complication following caesarean section." I want to thank the editorial team, especially Maria Emerson, for their prompt review of the manuscript, quick responses to queries, and overall support. Yours sincerely Dr. Victor Olagundoye.
Dear Ashley Rosa, Editorial Coordinator, International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. Many thanks for publishing this manuscript after I lost confidence the editors were most helpful, more than other journals Best wishes from, Susan Anne Smith, PhD. Australian Breastfeeding Association.
Dear Agrippa Hilda, Editorial Coordinator, Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. The entire process including article submission, review, revision, and publication was extremely easy. The journal editor was prompt and helpful, and the reviewers contributed to the quality of the paper. Thank you so much! Eric Nussbaum, MD
Dr Hala Al Shaikh This is to acknowledge that the peer review process for the article ’ A Novel Gnrh1 Gene Mutation in Four Omani Male Siblings, Presentation and Management ’ sent to the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews was quick and smooth. The editorial office was prompt with easy communication.
Dear Erin Aust, Editorial Coordinator, Journal of General Medicine and Clinical Practice. We are pleased to share our experience with the “Journal of General Medicine and Clinical Practice”, following the successful publication of our article. The peer review process was thorough and constructive, helping to improve the clarity and quality of the manuscript. We are especially thankful to Ms. Erin Aust, the Editorial Coordinator, for her prompt communication and continuous support throughout the process. Her professionalism ensured a smooth and efficient publication experience. The journal upholds high editorial standards, and we highly recommend it to fellow researchers seeking a credible platform for their work. Best wishes By, Dr. Rakhi Mishra.
Dear Jessica Magne, Editorial Coordinator, Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, Auctores Publishing LLC. The peer review process of the journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions was excellent and fast, as was the support of the editorial office and the quality of the journal. Kind regards Walter F. Riesen Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Walter F. Riesen.
Dear Ashley Rosa, Editorial Coordinator, International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews, Auctores Publishing LLC. Thank you for publishing our article, Exploring Clozapine's Efficacy in Managing Aggression: A Multiple Single-Case Study in Forensic Psychiatry in the international journal of clinical case reports and reviews. We found the peer review process very professional and efficient. The comments were constructive, and the whole process was efficient. On behalf of the co-authors, I would like to thank you for publishing this article. With regards, Dr. Jelle R. Lettinga.
Dear Clarissa Eric, Editorial Coordinator, Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Studies, I would like to express my deep admiration for the exceptional professionalism demonstrated by your journal. I am thoroughly impressed by the speed of the editorial process, the substantive and insightful reviews, and the meticulous preparation of the manuscript for publication. Additionally, I greatly appreciate the courteous and immediate responses from your editorial office to all my inquiries. Best Regards, Dariusz Ziora
Dear Chrystine Mejia, Editorial Coordinator, Journal of Neurodegeneration and Neurorehabilitation, Auctores Publishing LLC, We would like to thank the editorial team for the smooth and high-quality communication leading up to the publication of our article in the Journal of Neurodegeneration and Neurorehabilitation. The reviewers have extensive knowledge in the field, and their relevant questions helped to add value to our publication. Kind regards, Dr. Ravi Shrivastava.
Dear Clarissa Eric, Editorial Coordinator, Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Studies, Auctores Publishing LLC, USA Office: +1-(302)-520-2644. I would like to express my sincere appreciation for the efficient and professional handling of my case report by the ‘Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Studies’. The peer review process was not only fast but also highly constructive—the reviewers’ comments were clear, relevant, and greatly helped me improve the quality and clarity of my manuscript. I also received excellent support from the editorial office throughout the process. Communication was smooth and timely, and I felt well guided at every stage, from submission to publication. The overall quality and rigor of the journal are truly commendable. I am pleased to have published my work with Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Studies, and I look forward to future opportunities for collaboration. Sincerely, Aline Tollet, UCLouvain.
