Natural cycle versus modified natural cycle for endometrial preparation in women undergoing frozen-thawed embryo transfer: An RCT.

OA: gold CC-BY-NC-4.0
AI-generated summary by qwen3.7-flash, 2026-08-27

This randomized trial comparing natural versus modified natural cycles for endometrial preparation in frozen-thawed embryo transfer found no difference in clinical pregnancy rates, although the modified cycle group exhibited a significantly higher implantation rate.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

AI-generated deep summary by qwen3.7-flash, 2026-08-27 · read from full text

This randomized controlled trial compared true natural frozen-thawed embryo transfer (tNFET) and modified natural frozen-thawed embryo transfer (mNFET) cycles in 100 normoovulatory women to evaluate endometrial preparation methods. The study found no significant differences between the two groups regarding clinical pregnancy, chemical pregnancy, or abortion rates, although the implantation rate was significantly higher in the mNFET group. A major limitation noted was the reliance on urinary LH testing for ovulation detection, which carries risks of false-negative results due to diluted urine or short surges. Relevance to endometriosis: severe endometriosis was an exclusion criterion for this study on IVF cycle optimization, meaning the paper does not directly address endometriosis or adenomyosis pathology but rather focuses on general fertility treatments while excluding patients with advanced stages of these conditions.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

BackgroundStudies have evaluated different endometrial preparation methods, but the optimal frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) cycle strategy in terms of the in-vitro fertilization outcome is still debated.ObjectiveTo compare the natural versus modified natural cycles for endometrial preparation in women undergoing FET.Materials and methodsThis study was designed as a randomized clinical trial, and it was performed at the Arash women's hospital between August 2016-2018. Hundred and forty eligible participants were enrolled in this study and were randomly divided into 2 groups by using the block randomization method, including true natural FET (n = 70) and modified natural FET (mNFET) (n = 70) cycles. Both groups were monitored for endometrial thickness and follicular size; simultaneously spontaneous luteinizing hormone surge using urinary luteinizing hormone testing kits. The mNFET group received 5000 IU of human chorionic gonadotropin injection to trigger final follicular maturation. Luteal support by vaginal progesterone (cyclogest 400 mg twice daily) was used in true natural FET from the day of transfer until the 10 th wk of pregnancy. Chemical and clinical pregnancy and abortion rates were considered as the primary outcomes.ResultsThere were no differences in the participants' baseline characteristics between groups. There was no difference in clinical pregnancy and abortion rate between groups, while the implantation rate was significantly higher in the mNFET group (29.2% vs. 17.6%; p = 0.036).ConclusionThe results demonstrated that both types of natural cycles were similar in pregnancy outcomes, while modified cycles might be associated with a higher implantation rate.
Full text 14,641 characters · extracted from pmc-nxml · 2 sections · click to expand

Section

Both types of natural cycles were similar in pregnancy outcomes, while the mNFET may be associated with a higher implantation rate. Thanks to the fewer visits needed in the mNFET group and similar pregnancy outcomes, the mNFET cycle may be more convenient and preferable. However, considering the small sample size of the present study, more extensive clinical trials are needed for a definite conclusion.

Coi Statement

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: pmc-nxml

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. The paper's references may be in our DB but unresolved to ``paper_id`` (resolution happens at ingest when the cited DOI matches a row we already have). Run the cross-source citation reconcile pass to retry.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-08-23T09:30:01.253652+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-21T05:10:58.409756+00:00
License: CC-BY-NC-4.0