ArticleTurkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology2022
Comparison of natural and artificial cycles in frozen-thawed embryo transfer: A retrospective analysis of 1696 cycles.
Article in Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vasodilators for women undergoing fertility treatment.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Endometrial preparation protocols did not impact outcomes after frozen-thaw embryo transfer for chronic endometritis treatment.Contraception and reproductive medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to compare the pregnancy outcomes of natural cycles (NC) and artificial cycles (AC) in patients undergoing endometrial preparation for frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET). Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted in a private infertility clinic between September 2016 and January 2021 and reviewed 1696 FET cycles. Among these FET cycles, endometrial preparation protocols that are performed as the NC (group 1) and AC (group 2) were analyzed. Outcome measures were live birth rates (LBR), clinical pregnancy rates (CPR), implantation rates (IR), and miscarriage rates (MR). Results: The mean serum estradiol level before progesterone supplementation was significantly higher in group 2, whereas endometrial thickness before progesterone supplementation was higher in group 1 (p<0.05). The mean number of transferred embryos and embryo quality score rates regarding cleavage and blastocyst stages were similar in both groups. The IR and MR were similar between groups (p>0.05). Additionally, CPR and LBR were similar in groups 1 (39.2% and 32.8%) and 2 (37.3% and 28.5%) (p=0.517, p=0.134, respectively). Multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed that female age at embryo freezing time and the number of transferred embryos were predictable variables of live birth [odds ratio (OR): 0.970, confidence interval (CI): 0.948-0.991, p<0.05, and OR: 1.359, CI: 1.038-1.780, p<0.05, respectively]. Conclusion: Suitable endometrial preparation is essential to obtain successful pregnancy rates; however, no superiority was determined in NC or AC protocols in frozen-thawed cycles. One of these protocols may be performed depending on menstrual regularity and clinical experience.
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.