ArticleJournal of human reproductive sciences
Natural Cycle Frozen Embryo Transfer: Evaluating Optimal Protocols for Preparation and Timing.
Article in Journal of human reproductive sciences. 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.
- Reproductive outcome after frozen embryo transfer with hormone replacement therapy according to luteal-phase support protocol: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2025Pooled it
- Live birth rates in natural compared to artificial frozen blastocyst transfer cycles.Reproduction & fertility · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: While natural cycle frozen embryo transfer (NC-FET) is becoming increasingly common, significant practice variation exists in the use of ovulation induction medications, administration of ovulation trigger, and timing of embryo transfer without consensus as to the optimal protocol. Aims: The objective of this study is to evaluate the association of key aspects of the NC-FET protocol with implantation, pregnancy and live birth. Settings and Design: This was a retrospective cohort study of blastocyst stage NC-FET cycles from October 2019 to July 2021 at a single academic fertility centre. Materials and Methods: Protocols varied between cycles across three key parameters which were evaluated as primary predictors of cycle outcomes: (1) use of letrozole for mild ovarian stimulation/ovulation induction, (2) administration of exogenous ovulation trigger versus spontaneous luteinising hormone surge and (3) transfer timing based on ovulation trigger versus sequential progesterone monitoring. Primary outcomes included implantation rate, clinical pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy. Statistical Analysis Used: Generalised estimating equations were fitted to obtain adjusted odds ratios or rate ratios as appropriate with 95% confidence intervals for each outcome across the three primary predictors. Results: A total of 183 cycles from 170 unique patients were eligible for inclusion. The average implantation rate was 0.58, resulting in an overall clinical pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy rate of 59.0% and 51.4%, respectively. After adjusting for age at embryo freeze and history of a failed embryo transfer, there were no significant associations between any predictor and implantation rate, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, or live birth. Conclusion: In NC-FET, a variety of preparation and timing protocols may lead to comparable cycle outcomes, potentially allowing for flexibility on the basis of patient and physician preference. These findings warrant validation in a larger, randomised trial.
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.