ArticleFrontiers in reproductive health2025
Effect of a luteal phase rescue protocol on live birth rates in frozen embryo transfer cycles.
Article in Frontiers in reproductive health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing the Endometrial Factor in Recurrent Implantation Failure: From Established Diagnostics to Mechanism-Informed Management.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Serum progesterone levels for 'rescue' in hormone replacement FET: a retrospective cohort study of 917 cycles.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Impact of estradiol-to-progesterone ratio before progesterone initiation on pregnancy outcomes in frozen embryo transfer cycles with hormone replacement therapy: an analysis of over 25,000 cycles.Frontiers in endocrinology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Frozen embryo transfer (FET) is a standard procedure that improves live birth rates and reduces ovarian hyperstimulation risks. Optimizing luteal phase support with hormone replacement therapy (HRT), particularly by progesterone supplementation, enhances endometrial receptivity and embryo implantation success. Despite advances in cryopreservation techniques, optimal protocols for progesterone supplementation in HRT-FET cycles remain uncertain. This study aims to evaluate the effects of an individualized luteal phase protocol using subcutaneous progesterone on live birth rates in HRT-FET cycles. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed data from 433 autologous FET cycles prepared with HRT. Serum progesterone levels were measured the day before FET. Two groups were compared according to serum progesterone measurement the day before FET. The control group (≥ 11 ng/ml), received standard luteal support (800 mg vaginal progesterone daily); and the rescue group (<11 ng/ml), received an additional 25 mg subcutaneous progesterone daily. Pregnancy outcomes, including biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, and live birth rates, were assessed across both groups. Results: Despite overall similar pregnancy rates, the rescue group, receiving combined subcutaneous and vaginal progesterone, demonstrated a higher live birth rate compared to the control group (36.9% vs. 24.7%, Conclusion: Our findings suggest that adding subcutaneous progesterone to standard vaginal support in HRT-FET cycles may improve reproductive outcomes in patients with low serum progesterone levels the day before transfer. These results support tailoring progesterone supplementation to optimize luteal phase support. Further controlled trials are needed to establish standardized protocols for HRT-FET cycles.
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.