Frozen versus fresh embryo transfer in women with low prognosis for in vitro fertilisation treatment: pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

Name: Αlpha¹ Rigor Record — Frozen versus fresh embryo transfer in women with low prognosis for in vitro fertilisation treatment: pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.
Item: Frozen versus fresh embryo transfer in women with low prognosis for in vitro fertilisation treatment: pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.
Rating: 100
Author: Αlpha¹

Wei D, Sun Y, Zhao H, Yan J, Zhou H, Gong F, Zhang A, Wang Z, Jin L, Bao H, Zhao S, Xiao Z, Qin Y, Geng L, Cui L, Sheng Y, Sun M, Liu P, Ding L, Liu H, Wu K, Li Y, Lu Y, Xu B, Xu B, Zhang L, Zhang H, Legro RS, Chen ZJ

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review — 4★ (Strong), 0 critical, 2 high issues for “Frozen versus fresh embryo transfer in women with low prognosis for in vitro fertilisation treatment: pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.”

Links back to this Rigor Record.

Αlpha¹ Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Αlpha¹ Editorial · August 15, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

4 / 5

Strong — minor issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern ×2−1★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.39.0Source: full text

Problems surfaced1 type

Numerical inconsistencies1

Values that contradict each other or are impossible for the stated sample: recomputed p-values and test statistics, GRIM/GRIMMER checks on summary numbers, percentages against their own counts, totals against their parts, and estimates against their own confidence intervals.

Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

This Αlpha¹ Rigor Review uses AI Rigor Reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

This is a well-conducted and transparently reported pragmatic randomised controlled trial. The design is rigorous, with adequate randomization, sample size justification, and pre-specified analyses. Minor reporting gaps include lack of explicit CONSORT adherence and a slight inconsistency in live birth definition.

Both reviewers independently scored all dimensions as pass with high confidence, and their evidence was consistent. The study type is interventional (RCT). Non-applicable sub-criteria (e.g., animal housing, cell line authentication) were excluded. The statistics verification recomputed 3 tests, all consistent; however, this does not confirm the entire statistical analysis.

4 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: all adequately supported.

Efficacy claim is anchored to an adequate endpoint and a meaningful effect.

Recomputed 3 tests: 3 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 3 via agent-written checks.

2 integrity concerns flagged (0 high).

Reporting

Eight Dimensions8 pass

The introduction cites prior research on freeze-all strategies in normal/good prognosis women and notes the lack of evidence in low prognosis women. The hypothesis follows logically from the cited evidence and the authors' previous trials. Limitations of prior research (observational studies with inconsistent results) are acknowledged.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise with prior work cited and a logical rationale for the hypothesis.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 3]

“Randomised trials found that compared with fresh embryo transfer, the freeze-all strategy yielded a comparable or higher rate of live birth in women with normal or good prognosis. Whether women with low prognosis benefit from the freeze-all strategy is, however, unclear.”