ArticleInternational journal of reproductive biomedicine2025
Comparison of clinical pregnancy rates between hormone replacement therapy and modified natural cycle for endometrial preparation in frozen embryo transfer cycles: An RCT.
Article in International journal of reproductive biomedicine, 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.
- Natural ovulation versus programmed regimens before frozen embryo transfer in ovulatory women: multicentre, randomised clinical trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2026Trial
- 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
- Impact of estradiol-to-progesterone ratio before progesterone initiation on pregnancy outcomes in frozen embryo transfer cycles with hormone replacement therapy: an analysis of over 25,000 cycles.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) during the endometrial receptivity window is important for implantation. Objective: This study aims to compare the clinical pregnancy rate in 2 methods of endometrial preparation in FET using the hormone replacement cycle (HRC) and the modified natural cycle (mNC). Materials and Methods: In this randomized clinical trial, 128 infertile women who visited the Imam Khomeini hospital infertility clinic, Sari, Iran between April and October 2024 were randomly assigned to 2 groups (n = 64/each): the mNC frozen embryo transfer group and the HRC group. In the mNC frozen embryo transfer group, ovulation was induced using human chorionic gonadotropin, and the timing of frozen embryo transfer was scheduled based on ovulation. The HRC group received estradiol valerate until the endometrial thickness reached 8 mm, then daily injections of progesterone were added and FET were performed. Results: The participants had no significant differences in demographic characteristics. The primary outcome was clinical pregnancy rate with no significant difference between two groups (p = 0.282). No significant differences were observed between the mNC and HRC groups regarding the secondary outcome, which included human chorionic gonadotropin positive rate, chemical pregnancy rate, implantation rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, early miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, twin pregnancy, and cycle cancellation rate. Significant differences were observed in the number of monitoring visits between the mNC frozen embryo transfer and HRC groups (p = 0.001). Conclusion: Although the results indicate that the impact of both methods is similar, the fact that fewer visits are required in a natural cycle and there is also less need for hormones could make it preferable.
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.