Cochrane · systematic review · CD003414
Cycle regimens for frozen‐thawed embryo transfer
Ghobara, T, Gelbaya, TA, Ayeleke, RO · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2017 · Cochrane Library
Gynaecology and FertilityAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
28
current version
GRADE rated
16
No studies
12
Included studies
NR
No studies 12 · 42.9%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 8 · 28.6%Low 8 · 28.6%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Natural cycle FET versus HT FET
Population: subfertile women
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Live birth rate per woman Natural cycle FET vs HT FET | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Miscarriage rate per woman Natural cycle FET vs HT FET | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Ongoing pregnancy rate per woman Natural cycle FET vs HT FET | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Multiple pregnancy rate per woman Natural cycle FET vs HT FET | OR 2.48 [0.09, 68.14] | 1 study · 21 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Natural cycle FET versus HT plus GnRHa suppression FET
Population: subfertile women
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Live birth rate per woman Natural cycle FET vs HT plus GnRHa suppression FET | OR 0.77 [0.39, 1.53] | 1 study · 159 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Miscarriage rate per woman Natural cycle FET vs HT plus GnRHa suppression FET | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Ongoing pregnancy rate per woman Natural cycle FET vs HT plus GnRHa suppression FET | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Multiple pregnancy rate per woman Natural cycle FET vs HT plus GnRHa suppression FET | OR 0.58 [0.13, 2.5] | 1 study · 159 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Natural cycle FET versus modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger)
Population: subfertile women
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Live birth rate per woman Natural cycle FET vs modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) | OR 0.55 [0.16, 1.93] | 1 study · 60 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Miscarriage rate per woman Natural cycle FET vs modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) | OR 0.2 [0.01, 4.13] | 1 study · 168 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Ongoing pregnancy rate per woman Natural cycle FET vs modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) | OR 2.44 [1.03, 5.76] | 1 study · 168 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Multiple pregnancy per woman Natural cycle FET vs modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) versus HT FET
Population: subfertile women
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Live birth rate per woman Modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) vs HT FET | OR 1.34 [0.88, 2.05] | 1 study · 959 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Miscarriage rate per woman Modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) vs HT FET | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Ongoing pregnancy rate per woman Modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) vs HT FET | OR 1.21 [0.8, 1.83] | 1 study · 959 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Multiple pregnancy rate per woman Modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) vs HT FET | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) versus HT + GnRHa suppression FET
Population: subfertile women
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Live birth rate per woman Modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) vs HT + GnRHa suppression FET | OR 1.11 [0.66, 1.87] | 1 study · 236 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Miscarriage rate per woman Modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) vs HT + GnRHa suppression FET | OR 0.74 [0.25, 2.19] | 1 study · 236 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Ongoing pregnancy rate Modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) vs HT + GnRHa suppression FET | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Multiple pregnancy rate per woman Modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) vs HT + GnRHa suppression FET | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
HT FET versus HT + GnRHa FET
Population: women with primary or secondary subfertility
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Live birth rate per woman HT FET vs HT + GnRHa FET | OR 0.1 [0.04, 0.3] | 1 study · 75 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Miscarriage rate per woman HT FET vs HT + GnRHa FET | OR 0.64 [0.37, 1.12] | 6 studies · 991 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Ongoing pregnancy rate per woman HT FET vs HT + GnRHa FET | OR 1.72 [0.61, 4.85] | 1 study · 106 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Multiple pregnancy rate per woman HT FET vs HT + GnRHa FET | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
HMG FET versus clomiphene + HMG FET
Population: subfertile women
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Live birth rate per woman HMG FET vs clomiphene + HMG FET | OR 2.49 [1.07, 5.8] | 1 study · 209 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Miscarriage rate per woman HMG FET vs clomiphene + HMG FET | OR 1.33 [0.35, 5.09] | 1 study · 209 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Ongoing pregnancy rate per woman HMG FET vs clomiphene + HMG FET | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Multiple pregnancy rate per woman HMG FET vs clomiphene + HMG FET | OR 1.41 [0.31, 6.48] | 1 study · 209 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |