Observational studyJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2025
Efficacy of modified natural cycle vs. hormone replacement therapy in oocyte donation for recipients of advanced maternal age: a retrospective study.
Observational study in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the efficacy of modified natural cycle (mNC) preparation versus hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for endometrial preparation in recipients of donated oocytes, specifically focusing on pregnancy rates in women of advanced maternal age.
methodsRetrospective multicenter analysis conducted between 2021 and 2024. It includes 220 cycles of fresh single blastocyst transfers resulting from oocyte donation. The participants were divided into two groups based on their endometrial preparation method: modified natural cycle (nNC) (n = 105, 47.7%) and hormone replacement therapy (HRT) (n = 115, 52.3%). Ongoing pregnancy rate was the main outcome.
resultsBoth groups were similar in terms of donor (24.8 vs 25.1 years) and recipient age (42.3 vs 42.8 years), BMI, and the origin of the semen used. The ongoing pregnancy rate was comparable between the mNC group (44.8%) and the HRT group (40.0%), showing no significant difference (p = 0.47). The mNC group had significantly higher progesterone levels compared to the HRT group (26.45 vs. 16.63, respectively; p < 0.001). In the multivariate analysis, which accounted for factors such as donor and recipient age, BMI, semen origin, progesterone levels, and endometrial thickness, no significant differences were observed between the two groups for the main outcome of ongoing pregnancy rate.
conclusionsThe use of a modified natural cycle for endometrial preparation in advanced-age recipients of fresh single blastocyst transfers from vitrified donor oocytes results in ongoing pregnancy rates equivalent to those achieved with hormone replacement therapy.
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.