Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18254019›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2008

Cycle regimens for frozen-thawed embryo transfer.

T Ghobara, P Vandekerckhove

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

59 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 136 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Cycle regimens for endometrial preparation prior to frozen embryo transfer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Cycle regimens for frozen-thawed embryo transfer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

T GhobaraUniversity Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust, Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Walsgrave, Coventry, UK CV2 2LB. tghobara@hotmail.com
P Vandekerckhove
Musgrave Park Hospital · GBUniversity Hospital Coventry · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPregnancy rates following frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) treatment have always been found to be lower than following embryo transfer using fresh embryos. Nevertheless, FET increases the (cumulative) pregnancy rate, reduces cost, is relatively simple to undertake and can be accomplished in a shorter time period compared to repeated 'fresh' cycles. FET is performed using different cycle regimens: spontaneous ovulatory cycles, cycles in which ovulation is induced by drugs and cycles in which the endometrium is artificially prepared by oestrogen (O) and progesterone (P) hormones, with or without a gonadotrophin releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa).

objectivesTo determine whether there is a difference in outcome between natural cycle FET, artificial cycle FET and ovulation induction cycle FET. SEARCH STRATEGY: Our search included CENTRAL,DARE, MEDLINE (1950 to 2007), EMBASE (1980 to 2007) and CINAHL (1982 to 2007). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the various cycle regimens and different methods used to prepare the endometrium during FET in assisted reproductive technology (ART). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The two authors independently extracted data. Dichotomous outcomes results (e.g. clinical pregnancy rate) were expressed as an odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each study. Continuous outcome results (endometrial thickness) were expressed as weighted mean difference (WMD). Where suitable, results were combined for meta-analysis with RevMan software using the Peto-modified Mantel-Haenszel method. MAIN

resultsSeven randomised controlled studies assessing six comparisons and including 1120 women in total were included in this review.1) O + P FET versus natural cycle FET: this comparison demonstrated no significant differences in outcomes but confidence intervals remain wide, and therefore moderate differences in either direction remain possible (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.80, P 0.91).2) GnRHa + O + P FET versus O + P FET: this comparison showed that the live birth rate per woman was significantly higher in the former group (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.84, P 0.02). The clinical pregnancy rate was also higher but not significantly so (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.10, P 0.14).3) O + P FET versus follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) FET, 4) O + P FET versus clomiphene FET and 5) GnRHa + O + P FET versus clomiphene FET: there were no differences in the outcomes in the comparison of these cycle regimens.6) Clomiphene + human menopausal gonadotrophin (HMG) FET versus HMG FET: in a comparison of two ovulation induction regimes the pregnancy rate was found to be significantly higher in the HMG group (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.92). There were also fewer cycle cancellations and a lower multiple pregnancy rate when HMG was used without clomiphene but these did not reach statistical significance. AUTHORS'

conclusionsAt the present time there is insufficient evidence to support the use of one intervention in preference to another.

Indexed as

EstrogensPregnancy RateProgesteroneClomipheneCryopreservationEmbryo TransferEndometriumFemaleFertility Agents, FemaleFollicular PhaseGonadotropin-Releasing HormoneHumansOvulation InductionPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicClomipheneEstrogensFertility Agents, FemaleGonadotropin-Releasing HormoneProgesterone

Identifiers

PMID18254019
OpenAlexW4251359725

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.