SynthesisFrontiers in endocrinology2026
Optimal timing for frozen-thawed embryo transfer: evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in endocrinology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: This study aims to evaluate the association between the duration of cryopreservation and reproductive and neonatal outcomes using a meta-analysis. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Embase and Medline databases up to October 1, 2025. A total of 17 studies were included in the analysis and compared reproductive/neonatal outcomes between frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) ≤12 vs >12 months post-storage. The meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.3 software. Results: Shorter storage (≤12 months) was associated with higher odds of live birth rate(OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.09-1.30; 15 studies, I² = 78%), biochemical pregnancy rate (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.19-1.75; 8 studies, I² = 92%), and clinical pregnancy rate (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.12-1.37; 15 studies, I² = 85%). However, these associations were accompanied by substantial heterogeneity (I² = 78-92%), and 95% prediction intervals crossed the null line. The multiple pregnancy rate was also higher with shorter storage (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.03-1.55), yet this association was confined to studies permitting double-embryo transfer and likely reflects uncontrolled confounding by embryo number rather than a biological benefit. Subgroup analyses revealed that the association between shorter storage and improved outcomes was primarily driven by maternal age and studies from China. Meta-regression identified maternal age as a significant effect modifier for live birth rate (OR = 0.973, P = 0.014) and clinical pregnancy rate (OR = 0.974, P = 0.025), while no significant interactions were found for biochemical pregnancy rate. There were no significant differences between the two groups in survival rate, miscarriage rate, implantation rate, ectopic pregnancy rate, preterm birth, low birth weight, congenital malformations, or sex ratio. No significant publication bias was detected by Egger's or Begg's tests. Conclusion: Although shorter storage was associated with improved pregnancy rates, all studies were retrospective cohorts, precluding causal inference. High heterogeneity, wide prediction intervals, inconsistent confounding adjustment, and marked dependence on Chinese cohorts limit generalizability. The dichotomous classification cannot capture dose-response relationships, and long-term offspring outcomes remain unreported. Storage duration should not be used alone to prioritize transfer timing. Clinical decisions must remain individualized, accounting for patient readiness, embryo quality, and clinic-specific protocols.
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.