Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33829375›Full record

SynthesisJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2021

Endometrial preparation for frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Hanglin Wu, Ping Zhou, Xiaona Lin, Shasha Wang, Songying Zhang

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05215119 (Comparison of Immediate With Delayed Natural Cycle Frozen Embryo Transfers From Freeze-all-IVF Cycles), which is not on this map. Cited by 48 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT05215119 completednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Comparison of Immediate With Delayed Natural Cycle Frozen Embryo Transfers From Freeze-all-IVF Cycles: a Randomized Control Trial of First Frozen Embryo Transfers

TypeobservationalSponsorAntalya IVFRan2022 to 2025Enrolled818ConditionsClinical PregnancyArmsnatural cycle endometrial preparation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Hanglin WuDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hangzhou Women's Hospital, No. 369 Kun Peng Road, Zhejiang, 310008, Hangzhou, China.
Ping ZhouAssisted Reproduction Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, No. 3 Qingchun East Road, Zhejiang, 310016, Hangzhou, China.
Xiaona LinAssisted Reproduction Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, No. 3 Qingchun East Road, Zhejiang, 310016, Hangzhou, China.
Shasha WangAssisted Reproduction Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, No. 3 Qingchun East Road, Zhejiang, 310016, Hangzhou, China.
Songying ZhangAssisted Reproduction Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, No. 3 Qingchun East Road, Zhejiang, 310016, Hangzhou, China. zhangsongying@zju.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8044-6237

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81671435
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the effects of different endometrial preparation protocols for frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) cycles and present treatment hierarchy.

methodsSystematic review with meta-analysis was performed by electronic searching of MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and Google Scholar up to Dec 26, 2020. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or observational studies comparing 7 treatment options (natural cycle with or without human chorionic gonadotrophin trigger (mNC or tNC), artificial cycle with or without gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist suppression (AC+GnRH or AC), aromatase inhibitor, clomiphene citrate, gonadotropin or follicle stimulating hormone) in FET cycles were included. Meta-analyses were performed within random effects models. Primary outcome was live birth presented as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

resultsTwenty-six RCTs and 113 cohort studies were included in the meta-analyses. In a network meta-analysis, AC ranked last in effectiveness, with lower live birth rates when compared with other endometrial preparation protocols. In pairwise meta-analyses of observational studies, AC was associated with significant lower live birth rates compared with tNC (OR 0.81, 0.70 to 0.93) and mNC (OR 0.85, 0.77 to 0.93). Women who achieved pregnancy after AC were at an increased risk of pregnancy-induced hypertension (OR 1.82, 1.37 to 2.38), postpartum haemorrhage (OR 2.08, 1.61 to 2.78) and very preterm birth (OR 2.08, 1.45 to 2.94) compared with those after tNC.

conclusionNatural cycle treatment has a higher chance of live birth and lower risks of PIH, PPH and VPTB than AC for endometrial preparation in women receiving FET cycles.

Indexed as

Live BirthBirth RateCryopreservationEmbryo TransferEndometriumFemaleFertilization in VitroHumansPregnancyPregnancy RateRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicEndometrial preparationFrozen–thawed embryo transferMaternal and perinatal outcomesMeta-analysisPregnancy rate

Identifiers

PMID33829375
PMCPMC8417182

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.