Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

5 questions · 5 findings · 1 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 3 · 60%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 1 · 20%Low 1 · 20%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Natural cycle FET vs modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger)

Ongoing pregnancy · subfertile women

It is very uncertain whether natural cycle FET changes ongoing pregnancy rate per woman compared with modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Cycle regimens for frozen‐thawed embryo transfer 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 2.44 [1.03, 5.76]
1 study · 168 participants
Very low

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 + 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

Modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) 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

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