ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2022
Pregnancy Outcomes of Different Endometrial Preparation in Patients With a History of Cesarean Section.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2022. 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ovulation-induced frozen embryo transfer regimens in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2024Pooled it
- Review
- Early GnRH-agonist therapy does not negatively impact the endometrial repair process or live birth rate.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024Article
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the efficacies of three cycle regimens in women receiving frozen embryo transfer with a history of cesarean section: natural cycle treatment, hormone replacement therapy and treatment with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Methods: patients (N = 6,159) with a history of caesarean section who fulfilled the inclusion criteria were enrolled in the study from January 2014 to December 2019 at the CITIC-Xiangya Hospital of Reproduction and Genetics. Reproductive outcomes of patients in the natural cycle (n = 4,306) versus hormone replacement therapy (n = 1,007) versus gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist + hormone replacement therapy groups (n = 846) were compared. Continuous data were analyzed using Student's t-test, and categorical variables were analyzed using the χ2 test. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the possible relationships between the types of endometrial preparation and pregnancy outcomes after adjusting for confounding factors. Results: The unadjusted odds of the miscarriage rate of singleton pregnancies were significantly higher in the hormone replacement therapy compared with the natural cycle (25.5% versus 20.4%, respectively). After adjusting for possible confounding factors, the early miscarriage rate and the miscarriage rate of singleton pregnancies remained significantly higher in the hormone replacement therapy than the natural cycle. The clinical pregnancy rates in the natural cycle, hormone replacement therapy and gonadotropin- releasing hormone agonist + hormone replacement therapy of women with a history of cesarean section was 48.8%, 48% and 47.1%, respectively, and the live birth rates were 37%, 34.1% and 35.7%, respectively. Conclusions: In women undergoing frozen embryo transfer with a history of cesarean section, hormone replacement therapy for endometrial preparation was associated with a higher early miscarriage rate, albeit after statistical adjustment for confounding factors. However, the risk observed was little and did not influence the overall reproductive performances.
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.