Rigor Reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

Natural ovulation versus programmed regimens before frozen embryo transfer in ovulatory women: multicentre, randomised clinical trial.

Name: Αlpha¹ Rigor Record — Natural ovulation versus programmed regimens before frozen embryo transfer in ovulatory women: multicentre, randomised clinical trial.
Item: Natural ovulation versus programmed regimens before frozen embryo transfer in ovulatory women: multicentre, randomised clinical trial.
Rating: 59
Author: Αlpha¹

Wei D, Qin Y, Sun Y, Yan J, Zhao H, Guan Y, Tan J, Guo T, Wang Z, Gong F, Hao C, Ma X, Zhang C, Zhang A, Geng L, Sun M, Li X, Ling X, Lu Q, Bao H, Chao L, Huang W, Shi Q, Zhao J, Lu Y, Wu S, Zhang S, Wang J, Guo M, Sun X, Ma Y, Wu Q, Li Y, Ou X, Fang Z, Chen J, Hao G, Zhang H, Legro RS, Chen ZJ, PnROVE Study Group

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review — 3.5★ (Adequate), 0 critical, 6 high issues for “Natural ovulation versus programmed regimens before frozen embryo transfer in ovulatory women: multicentre, randomised clinical trial.”

Links back to this Rigor Record.

Αlpha¹ Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Αlpha¹ Editorial · August 10, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

3.5 / 5

Adequate — real issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern ×2−1★
ReportingEthical approvals partially met−0.25★
ReportingData & code availability partially met−0.25★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.29.0Source: full text

Not verified in this report

No data or code availability links were detected to verify.

Problems surfaced5 types

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

Overstated conclusions1

Conclusions that reach past what the paper's own results support — including a significance claim that no longer holds when the statistic is recomputed, and efficacy resting on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint.

Conclusions only partially backed by the presented evidenceAssessed

Data authenticity concerns1

An adversarial read for patterns associated with data that may not be genuine: results that look too clean, implausibly large effects, duplicated data or images, and methods that do not match the results reported.

Other integrity concernAssessed

Reporting gaps2

Required detail the manuscript never states — study design, biological variables, ethics approval and consent, key resources, statistical reporting, data and code availability, and overall transparency.

Data/code availability incompleteAssessed
Ethics/consent reporting incompleteAssessed

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, adequately powered multicentre randomised trial comparing natural vs programmed endometrial preparation for frozen embryo transfer. Methods, blinding, power, and outcome reporting are strong, and the statistical verification found no arithmetic errors. The main weaknesses are reporting gaps: a truncated data-availability URL, supplemental-only code, a missing CONSORT checklist statement, threshold-only p-values, and an over-claim of equivalence without a non-inferiority margin.

Both reviewers rated six dimensions pass and two warn; we downgraded statistical analysis to warn because the rubric treats threshold-only p-values (P<0.001) as imprecise reporting despite the reviewers' pass ratings. No demonstrable arithmetic errors were found; statistics verification recomputed 10 tests, all consistent. Citation check found no retracted or unresolved references.

9 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 10 tests: 10 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 10 via agent-written checks.

2 integrity concerns flagged (0 high).

Reporting

Eight Dimensions6 pass · 2 warn

Prior work is cited in the form of previous randomised trials and observational studies/meta-analyses; their main weakness (insufficient power for obstetric complications; residual confounding) is explicitly acknowledged. The rationale links the observational associations to a testable hypothesis about a natural ovulation regimen improving healthy live birth and reducing pre-eclampsia. The limitations of prior research are directly addressed by designing a large, adequately powered randomised trial.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The introduction clearly establishes the clinical controversy, cites prior randomised trials and observational studies, and uses their limitations to justify the trial hypothesis.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction]

“Previous randomised trials comparing the regimens for endometrial preparation focused on pregnancy and live birth rate, but they were not sufficiently powered to capture differences in the risks of obstetric and neonatal complications.”