ArticleReproduction & fertility2025
Live birth rates in natural compared to artificial frozen blastocyst transfer cycles.
Article in Reproduction & fertility, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Abstract: Debate persists regarding the optimal endometrial preparation model for frozen embryo transfer (FET). Among the various approaches, the natural cycle and artificially programmed cycles are commonly employed. However, no established guidelines currently recommend a preferred method. The aim of the present study was to compare live birth rates after FET in natural cycle versus artificial cycle endometrial preparation in a non-selected, real-life population. This retrospective study included patients from a single centre who underwent vitrified-thawed blastocyst transfer between January 2016 and April 2023. In the natural cycle FET group, no medication was used, and the transfer date was determined by luteinising hormone ovulation test results. In the artificial cycle FET group, patients received oestradiol and progesterone tablets. A total of 905 cycles were analysed, which included 164 NC-FET cycles and 741 AC-FET cycles. From the 295 live births, there were a total of 320 neonates, with multiple gestations occurring in 8% of cases. The live birth rates were significantly higher in the NC-FET group at 43%, compared to 30% in the AC-FET group (P = 0.001). The AC-FET group also experienced higher rates of biochemical pregnancies and spontaneous abortions. However, when adjusting for confounding variables in multivariate analysis, the type of FET was not found to be an independent predictor of live birth. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that while NC-FET is associated with higher live birth rates, other factors such as patient characteristics also play a significant role in these differences. Further prospective studies are needed to validate these results.
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.