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: 96
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 — 4.25★ (Strong), 0 critical, 2 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 15, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

4.25 / 5

Strong — minor issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern−0.5★
ReportingData & code availability partially met−0.25★

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

Not verified in this report

No data or code availability links were detected to verify.

Problems surfaced3 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

Reporting gaps1

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

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-designed and transparently reported multicentre randomised trial with rigorous methodology, clear ethical approvals, and appropriate statistical analysis. The main weakness is the incomplete data availability statement with a truncated URL and lack of a persistent repository identifier for data and code.

Both reviewers independently scored all eight dimensions and agreed on every status; no divergence required reconciliation. The statistics verification recomputed only 3 of the reported tests (those with test statistics/df or effect estimates with CIs); the remaining statistics were not machine-verified and should not be assumed correct. The citation check found no retracted or unresolvable references.

7 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: 1 only partially supported (evidence backs part of the claim; gaps or caveats remain); the rest 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.

1 integrity concern flagged (0 high).

Reporting

Eight Dimensions7 pass · 1 warn

The introduction cites previous randomised trials and observational studies, noting that prior trials were underpowered for obstetric complications and that observational studies suggested increased risks with programmed regimens. The rationale links this to the need for a large randomised trial. The paper explicitly states the hypothesis and addresses limitations of prior work by designing a trial powered for pre-eclampsia.

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, a logical rationale, and addresses limitations of prior research.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 2]

“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.”