ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2022
Endometrial preparation methods prior to frozen embryo transfer: A retrospective cohort study comparing true natural cycle, modified natural cycle and artificial cycle.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the role of GnRH agonists in frozen embryo transfer cycles among polycystic ovary syndrome patients: a randomized clinical trial.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Comparison of clinical pregnancy rates between hormone replacement therapy and modified natural cycle for endometrial preparation in frozen embryo transfer cycles: An RCT.International journal of reproductive biomedicine · 2025Article
- Impact of follicle size before luteal progesterone supplementation on clinical outcomes of modified natural cycle single frozen embryo transfer.F&S reports · 2025Article
- Clinical outcomes of different 17β-estradiol drug regimens and their impact on endometrial receptivity.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
- Influencing factors and predictive model of live birth involving low-grade blastocyst frozen-thawed transfer: a retrospective study.European journal of medical research · 2023Article
- Finding of the optimal preparation and timing of endometrium in frozen-thawed embryo transfer: a literature review of clinical evidence.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Review
- Adverse impact of elevated serum progesterone and luteinizing hormone levels on the hCG trigger day on clinical pregnancy outcomes of modified natural frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of three endometrial preparation methods prior to frozen embryo transfer (FET): Natural cycle (NC), modified natural cycle (mNC), and programmed/artificial cycle (AC) protocols. Primary outcomes investigated were clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and live birth rate (LBR).
methodsA retrospective study on 2080 FET cycles including patients ≤ 35 years with a BMI ≤ 30 who underwent FET with a single autologous blastocyst stage embryo at Aarhus University Hospital or Horsens Regional Hospital in the period 2013-2019. Only blastocysts frozen by vitrification were included. No luteal phase support (LPS) was used in natural cycles.
resultsIn NC, mNC and AC, CPRs were 34.9%, 40.6% and 32.0%, while LBRs were 32.3%, 36.3% and 26.6%, respectively. There were no significant differences in main outcomes when comparing AC with NC [LBR: OR = 0.9 (0.6; 1.2), p = 0.4]. Compared to NC, mNC-FET displayed significantly higher positive hCG, implantation rate, CPR and LBR [LBR: OR = 1.4 (1.0; 1.9), p = 0.03]. An analysis with mNC as reference group demonstrated significantly better outcomes in the mNC group compared to AC [LBR: OR 0.6 (0.5; 0.8), p = < 0.01].
conclusionThe present study overall demonstrated better outcomes including LBR with mNC protocol as compared to NC and AC protocol, while comparison of AC and NC showed both protocols to be equally effective. A programmed cycle may be necessary for women with anovulatory cycles; however, normo-ovulating women may be offered a natural cycle protocol. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 3-3013-3047/1 and 31-1522-44. Date of registration: June 24, 2019 and April 23, 2020.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.