Natural Compared With Artificial Cycle Endometrial Preparation for Frozen Embryo Transfer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Natural cycle preparation modestly improves live birth and lowers miscarriage after frozen embryo transfer.
*Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials; Level 1.
Citation
Lin LT, Chang R, Chen SN, et al. Natural Compared With Artificial Cycle Endometrial Preparation for Frozen Embryo Transfer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2026;148:e92-e107. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000006347
Background
Frozen embryo transfer is common, but the best way to prepare the uterine lining remains debated. Natural cycles may better mimic normal hormones, while artificial cycles offer easier scheduling.
Patients
Women aged 18 to 45 years undergoing frozen embryo transfer. Exclusions included fresh transfers, donor egg cycles, surrogacy, severe uterine scarring, nonrandomized studies, abstracts, and non-English full texts.
Intervention
Natural cycle preparation, including true natural cycles or modified natural cycles using an ovulation trigger.
Control
Artificial cycle preparation using estrogen and progesterone, with or without ovarian suppression.
Outcome
Live birth, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, and cycle cancellation.
Follow-up Period
Through pregnancy outcome after the frozen embryo transfer cycle.
Results
| Outcome | Natural cycle | Artificial cycle | Effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| Live birth (primary) | 41.5% | 39.2% | RR 1.11 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.19); NNT 31 |
| Miscarriage | 13.4% | 17.5% | RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.88); NNT 23 to prevent one miscarriage |
| Modified natural cycle live birth | 29.3% | 26.8% | RR 1.11 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.23) |
RR, risk ratio; CI, confidence interval; NNT, number needed to treat.
Clinical pregnancy, true natural cycles, and cycle cancellation did not differ significantly. Results used intention-to-treat analysis.
Limitations
Many trials had some or high risk of bias, and treatment blinding was not feasible. Cancellation rates varied widely between centers, limiting practical prediction. Benefits were modest and mainly seen with modified natural cycles, so results may not apply to anovulatory patients or clinics without intensive monitoring.
Funding
No reported funding or conflicts of interest.
Clinical Application
Consider modified natural cycles for ovulatory women undergoing frozen embryo transfer; artificial cycles remain useful when scheduling or anovulation matters.
Journal Club
Discussion questions and an EBM quiz for this paper. How to run a journal club →
Discussion
Sign in to join the discussion.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.