ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2026
Impact of serum progesterone levels and rescue progesterone supplemental luteal support on pregnancy outcomes in frozen embryo transfer: a controlled trial.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe role of serum progesterone levels and the benefit of rescue luteal support in frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles remain debated. While low serum progesterone has been linked to poorer outcomes, evidence on whether supplementation improves pregnancy rates is inconsistent.
objectiveTo evaluate the impact of serum progesterone levels and additional progesterone supplementation on pregnancy outcomes in women undergoing FET.
methodsIn this controlled, single-blind trial, 74 women were allocated into three groups: Group I (n = 26, progesterone < 10 ng/mL, standard luteal support), Group II (n = 23, progesterone < 10 ng/mL, standard luteal support + 400 mg progesterone), and Group III (n = 25, progesterone ≥ 10 ng/mL, standard luteal support). Primary outcome was clinical pregnancy; secondary outcomes included biochemical and ongoing pregnancy, and pregnancy loss. Logistic regression identified independent predictors.
resultsProgesterone levels differed significantly between groups both on transfer day and three days later (p < .001). Pregnancy outcomes did not differ significantly: biochemical pregnancy (50.0%, 34.8%, 44.0%), clinical pregnancy (42.3%, 34.8%, 44.0%), ongoing pregnancy (42.3%, 30.4%, 44.0%), and pregnancy loss (7.7%, 4.3%, 0%) for Groups I–III, respectively. Maternal age was the only consistent predictor across models, negatively associated with pregnancy outcomes (OR 0.85–0.87, p < .05).
conclusionSupplemental luteal support in women with low progesterone mitigate negative effects, as outcomes were comparable to women with normal progesterone even though it did not significantly improve pregnancy outcomes. Maternal age remained the strongest predictor. Larger trials are needed to clarify benefits in high-risk subgroups and to define optimal progesterone thresholds.
trial registrationIranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT), IRCT20200905048630N2, registered on 22 Aguest 2021.
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.