ArticlePloS one2025
Intensive luteal phase support in hormone replacement and modified natural cycle frozen embryo transfers in ovulatory patients: A propensity score-matched study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Empty Follicle Syndrome: Current Therapeutic Approaches and the Role of Triggering Agents in Assisted Reproductive Technology.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Impact of serum progesterone levels and rescue progesterone supplemental luteal support on pregnancy outcomes in frozen embryo transfer: a controlled trial.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal endometrial preparation protocol for frozen embryo transfer (FET) remains controversial, with different cycle regimens and luteal phase support strategies across studies yielding conflicting results. This study aimed to compare the pregnancy outcomes of modified natural cycles (mNC) versus hormone replacement therapy (HRT) cycles, both with intensive luteal support using vaginal micronized progesterone and oral dydrogesterone.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 2365 FET cycles (1892 HRT and 473 mNC) in ovulatory women. Both groups received vaginal progesterone (800 mg/day) and oral dydrogesterone (30 mg/day) from the day after ovulation trigger or upon progesterone initiation. Propensity score matching was used to balance baseline characteristics, resulting in 1419 HRT and 473 mNC cycles for analysis. Treatment effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals were estimated using appropriate regression models.
resultsThe propensity score-matched population had similar live birth rate (34.7% in the mNC group and 34.8% in the HRT group; aRR 1.02, 95% CI 0.80-1.29), pregnancy rate (54.3% vs 51.3%), clinical pregnancy rate (42.9% vs 42.0%), ongoing pregnancy rate (35.5% vs 35.7%), and miscarriage rate (7.8% vs 7.1%). There were no significant differences in multiple pregnancy rates, gestational age at delivery, birthweight, preterm birth rates between the two protocols.
conclusionsIn ovulatory women undergoing FET with intensive luteal phase support, the use of HRT or mNC for endometrial preparation yields comparable pregnancy and live birth rates.
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.