ArticleJournal of Korean medical science2024
Obstetric and Perinatal Outcomes in 44,118 Singleton Pregnancies: Endometrial Preparation Methods for Frozen-Thawed Embryo Transfer.
Article in Journal of Korean medical science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors Associated with Adverse Neonatal Outcomes in Complete Rupture of the Pregnant Uterus: A Single-Center Cohort Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
- GnRH antagonist protocol versus long-acting GnRH agonist protocol on pregnancy outcomes in IVF/ICSI: a retrospective cohort study.Annals of medicine · 2025Article
- Obstetric outcomes following artificial and natural cycle frozen embryo transfer in patients with and without endometriosis: a national cohort study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Comparing programmed, modified natural and natural cycle frozen embryo transfer on obstetric outcomes in polycystic ovary syndrome: a national cohort study.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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to investigate the obstetric and perinatal outcomes of singleton deliveries following frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles using different endometrial preparation methods.
methodsWe analyzed data on 44,118 singleton pregnant women who underwent in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), resulting in delivery or abortion, from the South Korean National Health Insurance Service database. Stratification was based on the type of embryo transfer, viz. fresh embryo transfer and FET cycles, using International Classification of Diseases (Tenth Revision) diagnostic codes, national procedural codes, and prescription medication data within the IVF/ICSI pregnancy cohort. FET was subcategorized into artificial cycle-FET (AC-FET), natural cycle-FET (NC-FET), and stimulated cycle-FET (SC-FET) for comparative analyses of the pregnancy, obstetric, and perinatal outcomes.
resultsAC-FET was associated with higher risks of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, preeclampsia, placenta accreta, and postpartum hemorrhage compared with NC-FET; the risk of macrosomia showed no significant differences. SC-FET was associated with a lower risk of miscarriage and higher rate of term birth beyond 37 weeks compared with NC-FET. However, SC-FET was associated with elevated risks of gestational hypertension and postpartum hemorrhage when compared to NC-FET.
conclusionThe rate of adverse obstetric and perinatal outcomes was higher in AC-FET compared to NC-FET, highlighting NC-FET as a valuable option owing to better maternal and fetal safety. In cases where NC-FET is not feasible, SC-FET presented as a favorable alternative, exhibiting lower miscarriage rates than NC-FET and better obstetric outcomes than AC-FET.
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.