Trial reportJAMA2022
Effect of Timing by Endometrial Receptivity Testing vs Standard Timing of Frozen Embryo Transfer on Live Birth in Patients Undergoing In Vitro Fertilization: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in JAMA, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03558399 (A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Live Birth From Single, Euploid Frozen Blastocyst Transfer Using Conventional Timing Versus Timing by Endometrial Receptivity Analysis), which is not on this map. Cited by 49 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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.
A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Live Birth From Single, Euploid Frozen Blastocyst Transfer Using Conventional Timing Versus Timing by Endometrial Receptivity Analysis
Who cites it
49 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 92 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endometrial receptivity-guided embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Does endometrial receptivity array improve reproductive outcomes in euploid embryo transfer cycles? a systematic review.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Pooled it
- The efficacy of RNA-seq-based endometrial receptivity test (rsERT) in guiding personalized embryo transfer in women with polycystic ovarian syndrome without recurrent implantation failure: a randomized controlled trial.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Trial
- Inflammatory Changes after Medical Suppression of Suspected Endometriosis for Implantation Failure: Preliminary Results.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Trial
- Trial
- Optimizing the Endometrial Factor in Recurrent Implantation Failure: From Established Diagnostics to Mechanism-Informed Management.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Article
- Biomarkers for Endometrial Receptivity: Implications for Infertility, Implantation Failure, and Advances in Diagnosis and Treatment.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Endometrial aging and uterine receptivity: endometrial receptivity analysis (ERA) outcomes in female patients of diverse age groups.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Article
- Multi-omics biomarkers in female fertility: from oocyte quality to endometrial receptivity and clinical translation.Biomarker research · 2026Review
- Hyperspectral image analysis, the final frontier of endometrial receptivity testing?Fertility and sterility · 2026Article
- Multidimensional regulatory architecture of endometrial receptivity and its translational implications for implantation failure.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
- Uterine factor infertility-current understanding and limitations.Uterine research · 2026Review
- Inflammatory proteomics of uterine fluid is potentially a non-invasive predictor for endometrial receptivity: a pilot study.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Article
- The declining efficiency of IVF in the USA.Human reproduction open · 2026Article
- A Bayesian reevaluation of randomized controlled trials in assisted reproductive technology: quantifying evidence strength for null and alternative hypotheses.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Decrypting spatiotemporal code of human endometrial receptivity.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Interaction between embryo transfer timing (D3/D4) and duration of progesterone exposure (P3/P4) on live birth rate in hormone replacement therapy cycles of frozen embryo transfer.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2025Article
- Chronic endometritis and its association with implantation history, BCL6, and ERA in infertility patients.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Endometrial receptivity testing is purported to improve live birth following frozen embryo transfer by identifying the optimal embryo transfer time for an individual patient; however, data are conflicting. Objective: To compare live birth from single euploid frozen embryo transfer according to endometrial receptivity testing vs standardized timing. Design, Setting, and Participants: Double-blind, randomized clinical trial at 30 sites within a multicenter private fertility practice in the Eastern US. Enrollment was from May 2018 to September 2020; follow-up concluded in August 2021. Participants underwent in vitro fertilization, preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy, endometrial receptivity testing, and frozen embryo transfer. Those with euploid blastocyst(s) and an informative receptivity result were randomized. Exclusion criteria included recurrent pregnancy loss, recurrent implantation failure, surgically aspirated sperm, donor egg(s), and unmitigated anatomic uterine cavity defects. Interventions: The intervention group (n = 381) underwent receptivity-timed frozen embryo transfer, with adjusted duration of progesterone exposure prior to transfer, if indicated by receptivity testing. The control group (n = 386) underwent transfer at standard timing, regardless of receptivity test results. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was live birth. There were 3 secondary outcomes, including biochemical pregnancy and clinical pregnancy. Results: Among 767 participants who were randomized (mean age, 35 years), 755 (98%) completed the trial. All randomized participants were analyzed. The primary outcome of live birth occurred in 58.5% of transfers (223 of 381) in the intervention group vs 61.9% of transfers (239 of 386) in the control group (difference, -3.4% [95% CI, -10.3% to 3.5%]; rate ratio [RR], 0.95 [95% CI, 0.79 to 1.13]; P = .38). There were no significant differences in the intervention vs the control group for the prespecified secondary outcomes, including biochemical pregnancy rate (77.2% vs 79.5%, respectively; difference, -2.3% [95% CI, -8.2% to 3.5%]; RR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.83 to 1.14]; P = .48) and clinical pregnancy rate (68.8% vs 72.8%, respectively; difference, -4.0% [95% CI, -10.4% to 2.4%]; RR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.80 to 1.12]; P = .25). There were no reported adverse events. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients for whom in vitro fertilization yielded a euploid blastocyst, the use of receptivity testing to guide the timing of frozen embryo transfer, compared with standard timing for transfer, did not significantly improve the rate of live birth. The findings do not support routine use of receptivity testing to guide the timing of embryo transfer during in vitro fertilization. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03558399.
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.