SynthesisJBRA assisted reproduction2019
Pregnancy rates from natural and artificial cycles of women submitted to frozen embryo transfers: a metanalysis.
Synthesis in JBRA assisted reproduction, 2019. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Seven Years of Vitrified Blastocyst Transfers: Comparison of 3 Preparation Protocols at a Single ART Center.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2020Trial
- Natural cycles achieve better pregnancy outcomes than artificial cycles in non-PCOS women undergoing vitrified single-blastocyst transfer: a retrospective cohort study of 6840 cycles.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2022Article
- Day 5 vs day 6 single euploid blastocyst frozen embryo transfers: which variables do have an impact on the clinical pregnancy rates?Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2022Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare pregnancy rates from natural and artificial cycles of women submitted to frozen embryo transfers.
methodsA systematic review was performed by PubMed search using the following algorithm: (endometrial [All Fields] AND preparation [All Fields]) AND (("freezing"[MeSH Terms] OR "freezing"[All Fields] OR "frozen"[All Fields]) AND thawed [All Fields]) and (natural cycles) AND (artificial cycle). Inclusion criteria: prospective and retrospective cohort studies. Exclusion criteria: use of hCG in the natural cycle, oocyte donors, and use of disused freezing techniques. Data were analyzed with the SPSS v.23 software and with a significance level of 5%. The meta-analysis was performed with RevMan 5.3 software. I² was calculated.
results709 papers were retrieved. Five studies fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria. From these studies, we analyzed 8,968 natural or artificial cycles. A contingency table compared the results of the natural and artificial cycles and the number of clinical pregnancies obtained in each selected paper. The I
conclusionThere is insufficient scientific evidence to state that the artificial cycle yields better pregnancy rates than the natural cycle in women submitted to frozen embryo transfer. Limitations of this study include a small number of papers and heterogeneity among the studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.