ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2026
Impact of different endometrial preparation protocols on pregnancy outcomes in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles among patients ≤35 years with a history of intrauterine adhesion separation surgery: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objective: To investigate the impact of three endometrial preparation protocols-hormone replacement therapy (HRT), natural cycle (NC), and down-regulation HRT-on pregnancy outcomes in frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles among patients with a history of intrauterine adhesion (IUA) separation surgery. Method: A retrospective cohort study was conducted to analyze the data from FET cycles at reproductive medicine center from January 2017 to December 2023. The patients with a history of intrauterine adhesion separation surgery were classified into three groups: the HRT group (n=285), the NC group (n=200), and the down-regulation HRT group (n=104). Baseline characteristics and reproductive outcomes were compared between the groups. Chi-square tests were used for univariate analysis, and multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to adjust for confounding factors. Results: There were statistically significant differences among the three groups in terms of general charateristics (all P<0.05). The clinical pregnancy rates for the HRT group, NC group, and down-regulation-HRT group were 30.88% (88/285), 47.50% (95/200), and 40.38% (42/104) respectively. The biochemical pregnancy rates were 35.09% (100/285), 50.50% (101/200), and 45.19% (57/104) respectively. The early miscarriage rates were 21.59% (19/88), 13.68% (13/95), and 21.43% (9/42) respectively, and the live birth rates were 22.81% (65/285), 36.50% (73/200), and 30.77% (32/104) respectively. There were statistically significant differences in clinical pregnancy rate, biochemical pregnancy rate and live birth rate among the groups. Following adjusting for confounding factors, the NC group exhibited significantly higher clinical pregnancy rate (aOR=1.627, 95% CI: 1.079-2.453, P = 0.02) and biochemical pregnancy rate (aOR=1.532, 95% CI: 1.020~2.301, P = 0.04) relative to the HRT group. There were no statistically significant differences in live birth rate, and early miscarriage rate (all P>0.05). Similarly, there were no statistically significant differences in clinical pregnancy rate, biochemical pregnancy rate, live birth rate, and early miscarriage rate between the down-regulation-HRT group and the HRT group (all P>0.05). Conclusion: For patients undergoing FET cycle with a history of IUA separation surgery, the live birth rate is similar between three groups. However, the natural cycle endometrial preparation protocol yielded higher clinical and biochemical pregnancy rates than the HRT protocol, suggesting its potential clinical advantage for these patients.
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.