Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33563330›Full record

ArticleFertility research and practice2021

The clinical relevance of luteal phase progesterone support in true natural cycle cryopreserved blastocyst stage embryo transfers: a retrospective cohort study.

Ian N Waldman, Catherine Racowsky, Emily R Disler, Ann Thomas, Andrea Lanes, Mark D Hornstein

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Fertility research and practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ian N WaldmanDivision of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. Iwaldman1@bwh.harvard.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5276-7340
Catherine RacowskyDivision of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Emily R DislerDivision of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Ann ThomasDivision of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Andrea LanesDivision of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Mark D HornsteinDivision of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Brigham and Women's Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMore than 67% of all embryos transferred in the United States involve frozen-thawed embryos. Progesterone supplementation is necessary in medicated cycles to luteinize the endometrium and prepare it for implantation, but little data is available to show if this is beneficial in true natural cycles. We evaluated the use of luteal phase progesterone supplementation for cryopreserved/warmed blastocyst transfers in true natural cycles not using an ovulatory trigger.

methodsRetrospective cohort study in a single academic medical center. We studied the use of luteal phase progesterone supplementation in patients undergoing true natural cycle cryopreserved blastocyst embryo transfers. Our primary outcome measure was ongoing pregnancy rate, with other pregnancy outcomes being evaluated (i.e. implantation rate, miscarriage rate, ectopic rate, and multifetal gestation). Categorical data were analyzed utilizing Fisher's exact test and all binary variables were analyzed using log-binomial regression to produce a risk ratio.

resultsTwo hundred twenty-nine patients were included in the analysis with 149 receiving luteal phase progesterone supplementation and 80 receiving no luteal phase support. Patient demographic and cycle characteristics, and embryo quality were similar between the two groups. No difference was seen in ongoing pregnancy rate (49.0% vs. 47.5%, p = 0.8738), clinical pregnancy rate (50.3% vs. 47.5%, p = 0.7483), positive HCG rate (62.4% vs. 57.5%, p = 0.5965), miscarriage/abortion rate (5.4% vs. 2.5%, p = 0.2622), ectopic pregnancy rate (0% vs. 1.3%, p = 0.3493), or multifetal gestations (7.4% vs. 3.8%, p = 0.3166). CONCLUSION(S): The addition of luteal phase progesterone support in true natural cycle cryopreserved blastocyst embryo transfers did not improve pregnancy outcomes and therefore the routine use in practice cannot be recommended based on this study, but the utilization should not be discouraged without further studies. CAPSULE: Progesterone supplementation as luteal phase support in true natural cycle cryopreserved blastocyst transfers does not improve ongoing pregnancies.

Indexed as

Cryopreserved blastocyst transferIVFLuteal phase supportOngoing pregnancyProgesteroneTrue natural cycle

Identifiers

PMID33563330
PMCPMC7871584
OpenAlexW3126361239

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.