ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2025
The effect of atosiban on pregnancy outcomes in different FET cycles: a single-center matched retrospective cohort study.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The debate over the clinical role of atosiban in assisted reproduction continues. The purpose of our study was to explore the efficacy of atosiban on pregnancy outcomes of patients undergoing frozen embryo transfer. Methods: A total of 1615 frozen embryo transfer cycles between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2022 were included in this retrospective cohort study. Patients were divided into two groups based on the administration of atosiban before frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET): the atosiban group (n=339) and the control group (n=1276). The primary outcome was live birth, while the secondary outcomes were biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, abortion, and ectopic pregnancy. Results: After propensity score matching (PSM), both univariable and multivariable analyses showed atosiban was not linked to an increased likelihood of biochemical pregnancy or clinical pregnancy, nor a reduced risk of abortion or ectopic pregnancy (p>0.05). When controlling for confounding factors, maternal age (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-0.98; p=0.004), history of failed ETs (1: OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.53-0.99; p=0.040; ≥2: OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46-0.92; p=0.015), embryo stage (OR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.85-3.25; p=0.000) and endometrial thickness (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01-1.24; p=0.025) were found to be associated with the likelihood of live birth. No beneficial effect of atosiban was observed in any of the subgroups based on maternal age, number of previous embryo transfers (ETs), endometrial thickness, or embryo stage in the subgroup analysis of the primary outcome. Conclusion: These results suggested that adding atosiban in the standard FET cycles might not improve the live birth rate. To confirm this conclusion, more thorough, prospective randomized controlled studies of sizable sample sizes with good design are required.
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.