Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

43 questions · 47 findings · 5 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 16 · 34%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 10 · 21.3%Low 16 · 34%Moderate 5 · 10.6%High 0 · 0%

Natural cycle FET vs HT FET

Live birth rate per woman · subfertile women

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Cycle regimens for frozen‐thawed embryo transfer 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Natural cycle FET vs HT FET

Miscarriage · subfertile women

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Cycle regimens for frozen‐thawed embryo transfer 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Natural cycle FET vs HT FET

Ongoing pregnancy · subfertile women

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Cycle regimens for frozen‐thawed embryo transfer 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Natural cycle FET vs HT FET

Multiple pregnancy rate · subfertile women

It is very uncertain whether natural cycle FET changes multiple pregnancy rate per woman compared with HT FET (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Cycle regimens for frozen‐thawed embryo transfer 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 2.48 [0.09, 68.14]
1 study · 21 participants
Very low

Natural cycle FET vs HT + GnRHa FET

Live birth rate per woman · subfertile women

Natural cycle FET showed no clear difference in live birth rate per woman compared with HT plus GnRHa suppression FET (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Cycle regimens for frozen‐thawed embryo transfer 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 0.77 [0.39, 1.53]
1 study · 159 participants
Low

Natural cycle FET vs HT + GnRHa FET

Miscarriage · subfertile women

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Cycle regimens for frozen‐thawed embryo transfer 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Natural cycle FET vs HT + GnRHa FET

Ongoing pregnancy · subfertile women

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Cycle regimens for frozen‐thawed embryo transfer 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Natural cycle FET vs HT + GnRHa FET

Multiple pregnancy rate · subfertile women

Natural cycle FET showed no clear difference in multiple pregnancy rate per woman compared with HT plus GnRHa suppression FET (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Cycle regimens for frozen‐thawed embryo transfer 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 0.58 [0.13, 2.5]
1 study · 159 participants
Low

IUI in a natural cycle vs TI

Live birth rate · couples with male subfertility

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Assisted reproductive technologies for male subfertility 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

IUI in a natural cycle vs TI

OHSS · couples with male subfertility

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Assisted reproductive technologies for male subfertility 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

IUI in a natural cycle vs TI or expectant management

Multiple pregnancy rate · participants with unexplained subfertility

IUI in a natural cycle showed no clear difference in multiple pregnancy rate per couple compared with TI or expectant management (low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Intra‐uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 0.5 [0.04, 5.53]
1 study · 334 participants
Low
Intra‐uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 1.05 [0.07, 16.9]
1 study · 342 participants
Low

IUI in a natural cycle vs TI or expectant management

Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome rate per woman ‐ not reported · participants with unexplained subfertility

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

2 findings from 1 review

Intra‐uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found
Intra‐uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

IUI in a natural cycle vs TI or expectant management

Miscarriage per couple · participants with unexplained subfertility

IUI in a natural cycle showed no clear difference in miscarriage rater per couple compared with TI or expectant management (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Intra‐uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 0.91 [0.32, 2.58]
1 study · 342 participants
Low

IUI in a natural cycle vs TI or expectant management

Ectopic pregnancy rate per couple · participants with unexplained subfertility

IUI in a natural cycle showed no clear difference in ectopic pregnancy rate per couple compared with TI or expectant management (low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Intra‐uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 5.3 [0.25, 111.26]
1 study · 342 participants
Low
Intra‐uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 5.06 [0.24, 1106.21]
1 study · 334 participants
Low

IUI in a natural cycle vs TI or expectant management

Miscarriage · participants with unexplained subfertility

IUI in a natural cycle showed no clear difference in miscarriage rate per couple compared with TI or expectant management (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Intra‐uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 0.77 [0.28, 2.11]
1 study · 334 participants
Low

Modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) vs HT FET

Live birth rate per woman · subfertile women

Modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) showed no clear difference in live birth rate per woman compared with HT FET (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Cycle regimens for frozen‐thawed embryo transfer 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 1.34 [0.88, 2.05]
1 study · 959 participants
Low

Modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) vs HT FET

Miscarriage · subfertile women

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Cycle regimens for frozen‐thawed embryo transfer 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) vs HT FET

Ongoing pregnancy · subfertile women

Modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) showed no clear difference in ongoing pregnancy rate per woman compared with HT FET (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Cycle regimens for frozen‐thawed embryo transfer 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 1.21 [0.8, 1.83]
1 study · 959 participants
Low

Modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) vs HT FET

Multiple pregnancy rate · subfertile women

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Cycle regimens for frozen‐thawed embryo transfer 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) vs HT + GnRHa FET

Live birth rate per woman · subfertile women

Modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) showed no clear difference in live birth rate per woman compared with HT + GnRHa suppression FET (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Cycle regimens for frozen‐thawed embryo transfer 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 1.11 [0.66, 1.87]
1 study · 236 participants
Low