Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

20 questions · 20 findings · 1 reviews · Gynaecology and Fertility

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 10 · 50%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 4 · 20%Low 6 · 30%Moderate 0 · 0%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 modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger)

Miscarriage · subfertile women

It is very uncertain whether natural cycle FET changes miscarriage 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 0.2 [0.01, 4.13]
1 study · 168 participants
Very low

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 modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger)

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

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

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

Live birth rate per woman · subfertile women

It is very uncertain whether natural cycle FET changes live birth 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 0.55 [0.16, 1.93]
1 study · 60 participants
Very 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

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

Miscarriage · subfertile women

Modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) showed no clear difference in miscarriage 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 0.74 [0.25, 2.19]
1 study · 236 participants
Low

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 + GnRHa 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