ArticleJournal of ovarian research2025
Comparison of oral dydrogesterone and vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support in natural and modified natural cycle frozen embryo transfers.
Article in Journal of ovarian research, 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
backgroundThis study evaluates the effectiveness of oral dydrogesterone (DYD) for luteal phase support on pregnancy outcomes in patients undergoing frozen embryo transfer with natural cycle protocols (NC-FET), compared with micronized vaginal progesterone (MVP) and combined therapy.
methodsA retrospective study analyzed 2,035 NC-FET cycles, including both natural and modified natural cycles, conducted between January 2019 and August 2022. A total of 2,035 NC-FET cycles were analyzed. Participants were categorized into three groups based on luteal phase support regimens: Group A (699 cycles) received oral DYD, Group B (433 cycles) received MVP, and Group C (903 cycles) received combination therapy. The live birth rates and neonatal outcomes were compared among the groups.
resultsThe live birth rates were comparable across the groups (43.8%, 39.0%, and 42.1%; P > 0.05). No significant variations were found in clinical pregnancy rate, spontaneous miscarriage rate, ectopic pregnancy rate, premature birth rate, and newborn birth weights. Embryo implantation rates in Groups A and C were significantly higher than in Group B (44.1% and 42.9% vs. 37.8%; P = 0.029). Multi-factor regression analysis identified several independent variables influencing the live birth rate, but luteal support regimens did not significantly impact live birth rates (P > 0.05).
conclusionIn NC-FET cycles, oral DYD demonstrates clinical efficacy comparable to MVP and combined medication. As a monotherapy, oral DYD expands therapeutic options, offering a convenient and effective choice to improve adherence and achieve similar pregnancy outcomes. This finding is significant for guiding clinical practices towards optimal treatment strategies that prioritize patient compliance and satisfaction.
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.