Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 361

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 92 of the 92 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Frozen embryo transfer: a review on the optimal endometrial preparation and timing

Open access
Mackens, S, Santos-Ribeiro, S, van de Vijver, A, Racca, A, Van Landuyt, L, Tournaye, H, Blockeel, C·2017·Human Reproduction

Abstract

STUDY QUESTION: What is the optimal endometrial preparation protocol for a frozen embryo transfer (FET)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Although the optimal endometrial preparation protocol for FET needs further research and is yet to be determined, we propose a standardized timing strategy based on the current available evidence which could assist in the harmonization and comparability of clinic practice and future trials. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Amid a continuous increase in the number of FET cycles, determining the optimal endometrial preparation protocol has become paramount to maximize ART success. In current daily practice, different FET preparation methods and timing strategies are used. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a review of the current literature on FET preparation methods, with special attention to the timing of the embryo transfer. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Literature on the topic was retrieved in PubMed and references from relevant articles were investigated until June 2017. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The number of high quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is scarce and, hence, the evidence for the best protocol for FET is poor. Future research should compare both the pregnancy and neonatal outcomes between HRT and true natural cycle (NC) FET. In terms of embryo transfer timing, we propose to start progesterone intake on the theoretical day of oocyte retrieval in HRT and to perform blastocyst transfer at hCG + 7 or LH + 6 in modified or true NC, respectively. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: As only a few high quality RCTs on the optimal preparation for FET are available in the existing literature, no definitive conclusion for benefit of one protocol over the other can be drawn so far. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Caution when using HRT for FET is warranted since the rate of early pregnancy loss is alarmingly high in some reports. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): S.M. is funded by the Research Fund of Flanders (FWO). H.T. and C.B. report grants from Merck, Goodlife, Besins and Abbott during the conduct of the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/humrep/dex285

Cites

92 of 92 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 92 references

Cited by

See all 361

Metadata

Authors
Mackens, S., Santos-Ribeiro, S., van de Vijver, A., Racca, A., Van Landuyt, L., Tournaye, H., & Blockeel, C.
Venue
Human Reproduction
Published
2017-09-08
Volume
32
Issue
11
Pages
2234-2242
ISSN
  • 0268-1161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2350
OpenAlex
W2751357516
Cited by
361
References
92
FWCI
15.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Frozen embryo transfer: a review on the optimal endometrial preparation and timing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/humrep/dex285
The paper
Mackens, S., Santos-Ribeiro, S., van de Vijver, A., Racca, A., Van Landuyt, L., Tournaye, H., & Blockeel, C. (2017). Frozen embryo transfer: a review on the optimal endometrial preparation and timing. Human Reproduction. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dex285

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.