ArticleReproductive medicine and biology
Authors' Response to the Commentary on "Micronized Vaginal Progesterone Dose and Serum Progesterone Thresholds Determine Reproductive Outcomes in Frozen-Thawed Embryo Transfer With Hormone Replacement Therapy".
Article in Reproductive medicine and biology. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This response addresses the methodological concerns raised in a commentary on our study evaluating vaginal progesterone dose, serum progesterone concentrations, and reproductive outcomes in hormone replacement therapy-frozen embryo transfer cycles. Methods: We revisited the study objectives, analytical approach, interpretation of the proposed serum progesterone threshold, formulation-specific considerations, treatment-selection practices, and the potential influence of insurance reform. Main Findings: We clarify that the proposed serum progesterone threshold should not be interpreted as a definitive clinical cutoff and that differences among progesterone formulations and non-random treatment selection may have influenced the observed associations. We also emphasize that several concerns raised in the commentary, including residual confounding and limitations inherent to the retrospective observational design, were acknowledged in the original manuscript. Conclusion: Our findings should be interpreted as exploratory observational associations rather than causal estimates. They may help generate hypotheses and inform the design of future prospective studies evaluating progesterone regimens and serum progesterone monitoring in hormone replacement therapy-frozen embryo transfer cycles.
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.