Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40746270›Full record

SynthesisUltrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology2025

Reproductive outcome after frozen embryo transfer with hormone replacement therapy according to luteal-phase support protocol: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

A Etrusco, B Ata, V Agrifoglio, A D'Amato, C Wyns, A Vitagliano, C Alviggi, A Conforti, A Favilli, P De Franciscis and 2 more

Abstract readNetwork Meta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

A EtruscoDepartment of Health Promotion, Mother and Child Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (PROMISE), University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-7414-4224
B AtaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Koç University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Türkiye.ORCID 0000-0003-1106-3747
V AgrifoglioDepartment of Health Promotion, Mother and Child Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (PROMISE), University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
A D'AmatoDepartment of Interdisciplinary Medicine (DIM), Unit of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Bari 'Aldo Moro', Policlinico of Bari, Bari, Italy.
C WynsCliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
A VitaglianoDepartment of Interdisciplinary Medicine (DIM), Unit of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Bari 'Aldo Moro', Policlinico of Bari, Bari, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2824-5435
C AlviggiDepartment of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, Napoli, Italy.
A ConfortiDepartment of Neuroscience, Reproductive Science and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Napoli, Italy.
A FavilliSection of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy.
P De FranciscisDepartment of Woman, Child and General and Specialized Surgery, University of Campania 'Luigi Vanvitelli', Naples, Italy.
A S LaganàDepartment of Health Promotion, Mother and Child Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (PROMISE), University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
G RiemmaDepartment of Woman, Child and General and Specialized Surgery, University of Campania 'Luigi Vanvitelli', Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3676-7716

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare reproductive outcome between luteal-phase support (LPS) protocols for frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles with hormone replacement therapy (HRT).

methodsA search was conducted in MEDLINE, Scopus, LILACS, EMBASE, Scielo.br, PROSPERO, CINAHL, PsycINFO, AMED, ClinicalTrials.gov, ICTRP, the Cochrane Library and conference proceedings, with no restrictions on date, geography or language. We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that allocated infertile women to at least two different hormone-based LPS protocols for HRT-FET, with similar baseline characteristics between groups. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension statement for network meta-analyses (PRISMA-NMA) was followed. A random-effects network meta-analysis was performed for direct and indirect pairwise comparisons to rank available LPS protocols by the surface under the cumulative ranking curve area (SUCRA). Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool version 1. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) criteria. The primary outcomes were the live birth rate and the combined rate of ongoing pregnancy and live birth; the secondary outcomes were the clinical pregnancy rate and the pregnancy loss rate.

resultsTen RCTs assigned a total of 4216 patients to nine different LPS approaches. Regarding the combined outcome of ongoing pregnancy and live birth, oral dydrogesterone (DYD) combined with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) was significantly more efficacious compared with all other LPS protocols (very low to low certainty of evidence), with SUCRA analysis ranking it as the treatment of choice (SUCRA = 97.3%). When the analysis was restricted to live birth only, vaginal suppository progesterone showed a higher likelihood of being the treatment of choice (SUCRA = 89.7%), but only exhibited a significant difference on pairwise analysis when compared with intramuscular progesterone (odds ratio (OR), 0.53 (95% CI, 0.33-0.84); low certainty of evidence) and intramuscular progesterone + vaginal suppository progesterone (OR, 0.47 (95% CI, 0.32-0.69); low certainty of evidence). For the clinical pregnancy rate, no significant differences between treatments were found (very low to low certainty of evidence), with vaginal suppository progesterone + human chorionic gonadotropin being the highest-ranked treatment (SUCRA = 33.7%). For pregnancy loss rate, intramuscular progesterone + vaginal suppository progesterone was significantly more efficacious compared with either treatment alone (low certainty of evidence), and had the highest chance of being the top-ranked treatment (SUCRA = 51.4%).

conclusionsThere is very-low-to-low-certainty evidence that oral DYD + GnRHa and vaginal suppository progesterone alone could be the most promising LPS approaches to increase the rates of live birth and ongoing pregnancy in women undergoing HRT-FET. However, the low certainty of evidence and the lack of a clear first-ranked treatment, due to inconsistencies in the analysis for some outcomes, stress the need for further RCTs on this subject. © 2025 The Author(s). Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Indexed as

Embryo TransferHormone Replacement TherapyInfertility, FemaleLuteal PhaseCryopreservationFemaleHumansLive BirthPregnancyPregnancy OutcomePregnancy RateRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicartificial cyclecumulative pregnancy ratefrozen embryo transferhormone replacement therapyinfertilityluteal phase supportprogesterone

Identifiers

PMID40746270
PMCPMC12488206

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.