Managing low ovarian response remains challenging despite advancements in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Although several approaches have been proposed, there is no strong evidence that a particular stimulation protocol is superior over the other in terms of improving reproductive outcomes in this group of women. The double stimulation protocol (DuoStim) suggests ovarian stimulation during both the follicular phase and the luteal phase of the same ovarian cycle; hence, facilitating two oocyte retrievals in the shortest amount of time.

This study assessed the effect of the double stimulation protocol (DuoStim) on poor ovarian responders in terms of cumulative live birth rates and clinical pregnancy rates, and compared these outcomes to conventional stimulation protocols.

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT), cohort and cross-sectional studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. Data from eligible journals were tabulated and analyzed using Cochran’s Q and I² tests.

Eight studies involving poor ovarian responders were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis demonstrated no significant difference between DuoStim and conventional ovarian stimulation protocols in clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.75–1.30) and cumulative live birth rate (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.59–1.28). Fertilization rates were likewise comparable between groups. Nevertheless, several included studies reported higher oocyte yield and greater numbers of mature oocytes and blastocysts with DuoStim

Current evidence does not demonstrate significant superiority of DuoStim over conventional ovarian stimulation protocols in terms of clinical pregnancy rates, cumulative live birth rates, or fertilization rates among poor ovarian responders. However, DuoStim appears to be an effective strategy for increasing oocyte yield within a shorter treatment timeframe. Its use may be particularly relevant in selected patients with diminished ovarian reserve, advanced maternal age, or urgent fertility preservation needs. Further high-quality prospective trials are warranted to clarify its impact on reproductive outcomes.