ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Endometrial preparation methods prior to frozen embryo transfer: a retrospective cohort study comparing true natural cycle, ovulation induction, hormone replacement treatment and GnRHa pretreatment.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2025. 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 the efficacy of letrozole-ovulation induction cycle, natural cycle, and hormonal replacement therapy cycle in cryopreserved embryo transfer: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Analysis of factors influencing clinical pregnancy rates in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
- Association of GnRH Agonist Pretreatment with Reproductive Outcomes in Women ≥35 years with Diminished Ovarian Reserve Undergoing Frozen Embryo Transfer: A Large Retrospective Cohort Study.International journal of women's health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare pregnancy outcomes of four endometrial preparation methods prior to frozen embryo transfer (FET).
methodsA total of 3,030 programmed cycles were analyzed: 302 with natural cycle (NC), 131 with ovulation induction (OI), 1,078 with hormone replacement treatment (HRT), and 1,519 with GnRHa pretreatment (GnRHa + HRT). Primary outcomes investigated were positive human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), chemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, abortion, and live birth. Additionally, the impact of age, body mass index (BMI), embryo number, high-quality embryo, and endometrial thickness on pregnancy outcomes were analyzed.
resultsThe positive hCG rates for NC, OI, HRT, and GnRHa + HRT groups were 63.4%, 62.6%, 68.3%, and 71.7%, respectively (P = 0.004). Clinical pregnancy rates were 50.4%, 54%, 57.5%, and 61.8%, respectively (P = 0.004). Live birth rates were 38.2%, 45%, 46.5%, and 50.9%, respectively (P = 0.007). No significant differences were found in abortion and chemical pregnancy rates among the four protocols. NC showed significantly higher positive hCG (p = 0.044), live birth (p = 0.005), and clinical pregnancy rates (p = 0.010) compared to other methods. Compared to HRT, GnRHa + HRT displayed significantly higher live birth (p = 0.027) and clinical pregnancy rates (p = 0.027). Multiple logistic regression showed that the number of embryos and high-quality embryos increased HCG positivity, clinical pregnancy, and live birth rates, while age reduced these rates. BMI increased the abortion rate, and endometrial thickness increased the live birth rate. Chemical pregnancy was unaffected by these factors.
conclusionNC offers improved outcomes compared to other methods. Additionally, specific factors such as embryo quality and embryo number significantly influence pregnancy outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.