SynthesisBMJ open2022
Treatment outcomes of blastocysts thaw cycles, comparing the presence and absence of a corpus luteum: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2022. 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.
- Comparison of progesterone-modified natural cycle and hormone replacement therapy cycle for endometrial preparation in single frozen blastocyst transfer (COMPROSET): protocol for an open-label randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- The predictive value of uterine artery Doppler in the success rate of pregnancy from the first frozen embryo transfer during the implantation window.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Article
- The HERA (Hyper-response Risk Assessment) Delphi consensus for the management of hyper-responders in in vitro fertilization.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2023Article
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
purposeThis study aims to review the literature and perform a meta-analysis to determine if the presence of a corpus luteum has an impact on treatment outcomes in thaw cycles, where blastocyst embryos are transferred.
methodPUBMED, EMBASE, CENTRAL and CINAHL were searched for papers published between January 2017 and 27 July 2020. Additional articles were selected from the reference list of the results and previous reviews. Three reviewers independently reviewed and extracted data. The meta-analysis was conducted though RevMan V.5.4.1. Studies were quality assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
resultsNine publications were included for data extraction and subsequent meta-analysis. Two studies were randomised controlled trials, and seven were cohort studies. Subgroup analysis of the different study designs was performed. While the rates of positive human chorionic gonadotropin results (relative risk, RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.05) and clinical pregnancies (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.18) were comparable between the two groups, the rates of live births were higher in thaw cycles with a corpus luteum (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.22). Analysis of pregnancy losses demonstrated that both biochemical pregnancy (early miscarriage) (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.82) and miscarriages (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.83) were increased in cycles without a corpus luteum.
conclusionWhere clinically appropriate, the use of cycle types that have a functional corpus luteum should be favoured. There were several limitations to this study, including the quality of studies and the inherent bias of retrospective cohort studies. Further, high-quality research, particularly randomised controlled trials with blastocysts embryos, is required to further explore these findings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020209583.
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.