ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2026
When similar live birth rates do not mean protocol equivalence in frozen embryo transfer.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Similar live birth rates in frozen embryo transfer (FET) trials can be over-read as evidence that natural, modified natural, and programmed endometrial preparation protocols are biologically equivalent. This interpretation is not warranted when cancellation, delayed transfer, and rescue switching are built into care. Under these conditions, randomization compares starting strategies that unfold through managed clinical pathways, not uninterrupted protocols completed exactly as assigned. Using recent FET trials as practical examples, this Clinical Opinion argues for a narrower and more constructive interpretation: similar live birth supports pathway effectiveness only for the estimand that was actually analyzed. Clinicians should ask whether the reported effect reflects assignment to an initial strategy, completion of the first assigned protocol, or a hypothetical no-switch contrast. Cancellation and rescue switching should be treated as outcomes; pathway burden should be reported alongside live birth, and safety outcomes should use denominators aligned with the stage at which harms occur. These FET-specific reporting recommendations apply existing CONSORT, CONSORT Harms, and ICH E9(R1) principles to trials in which cancellation or switching can materially affect interpretation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42573898What 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.