Observational studyJournal of ovarian research2024
The natural menstrual cycle revisited - can natural cycle be trusted.
Observational study in Journal of ovarian research, 2024. 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.
- Assessment of ovarian dysfunction induced by environmental toxins: a systematic review.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Live birth rates are unrelated to sex-steroid levels on ET day in a dydrogesterone-based 'programmed-ovulatory FET' protocol: a multi-centric prospective cohort study.Human reproduction open · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe serum progesterone (P4) level during the luteal phase (LP) plays a crucial role in the initiation and maintenance of pregnancy. However, it is unclear whether the natural cycle consistently provides the best endocrine profile and whether mid-luteal serum P4 levels are always sufficient to support implantation and early pregnancy. The question has become more relevant in relation to fertility treatment, as more frozen embryo transfer cycles are performed in the natural cycle. Moreover, can serum hormone levels and covariates measured during the follicular phase (FP), such as Follicle Stimulation Hormone (FSH), Luteinizing Hormone (LH), Estradiol (E2), Anti-Mullerian Hormone (AMH) and Antral Follicle Count (AFC), be used to predict P4 levels during the luteal phase (LP)?
resultsThis observational prospective cohort study analysed 26 healthy women with a cycle length between 21-35 days and a body mass index (BMI) < 30 kg/m
conclusionsA significant correlation between FP E2 levels cycle day 5 (> 131pmol/L) and cycle day 10 (> 345pmol/L) and a LP P4 level ≥ 30 nmol/l was found; thus, the FP E2 level is a predictor of corpus luteum competence. Our findings highlight the existence of suboptimal P4 levels during the LP and a significant inter-individual and intra-cycle variation in P4 levels during the LP in regular menstruating women.
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.