Natural cycle IVF vs standard IVF: Clinical pregnancy
Natural cycle IVF showed no clear difference in clinical pregnancy per woman compared with standard IVF (low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Natural cycle IVF vs standard IVF Clinical pregnancy per woman · Subfertile couples Natural cycle IVF showed no clear difference in clinical pregnancy per woman compared with standard IVF (low certainty). Natural cycle in vitro fertilisation (IVF) for subfertile couples (2013) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | OR 0.52 [0.17, 1.61] | 4 studies · 351 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Natural cycle in vitro fertilisation (IVF) for subfertile couples 2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.