Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12076439›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2002

Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted conception.

D Blake, M Proctor, N Johnson, D Olive

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

D BlakeGlycoscience Research Department, Auckland University of Technology, Private Bag 92006, Auckland, New Zealand, 1020. debbie.blake@aut.ac.nz
M Proctor
N Johnson
D Olive

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite numerous advances in the field of in vitro fertilisation (IVF), many of the widely applied embryo culture techniques and resulting implantation rates have remained relatively unchanged since the first treatment was performed in the mid 1970's. Recent advances in the understanding of nutrient requirements of embryos, have led to a renaissance of extending their culture from the standard procedure of 2-3 days (early cleavage embryo transfer) to 5-6 days (blastocyst culture). The rationale for blastocyst culture is to improve the synchronicity of uterine and embryonic development and provide a mechanism for self-selection of viable embryos. Numerous reports on the clinical benefits of blastocyst culture have led to the worldwide introduction of this technique, despite a deficiency of conclusive evidence to do so.

objectivesPrimary: To determine if blastocyst stage embryo transfers (ET's) result in higher success rates, than cleavage stage embryo transfers. Secondary: To assess the overall embryo utilisation rate of both techniques. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic searches of the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group specialised register of controlled trials, CCTR, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Bio extracts were performed to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Attempts were also made to identify trials from the National Research Register, the Clinical Trial Register and the citation lists of review articles and included trials. The first or corresponding author of each included trial was also contacted for additional information. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were included if they were randomised and compared the effectiveness of early cleavage versus blastocyst stage transfers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Of the 29 trials that were identified, ten trials met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed. Primary outcomes were rates of; live birth, clinical pregnancy and implantation per woman. Secondary outcomes were rates of; miscarriage, monozygotic twinning, embryo freezing, embryo utilisation, cancellation, multiple pregnancy and high order pregnancy and per cycle data. Quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. Meta analysis was performed using odds ratios for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes. MAIN

resultsThere was no significant difference between the two treatment groups in live birth rate, although this was reported by only one quasi-random trial (Peto OR 1.59, 95% CI 0.80, 3.15). There was also no evidence of a difference in pregnancy rate (both overall and subgroups) between the two groups for pregnancy rate per couple randomised (4 RCTs: Peto OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.57, 1.29). There was also no suggestion of an overall difference in implantation rates per embryo's transferred although it was impossible to calculate valid confidence intervals from published data (Day 2/3 17.1% vs Day 5/6 18.9%). The subgroup of sequential media trials suggested higher implantation rate for blastocyst transfer (Day 2/3 22.6% vs Day 5/6 32%). The miscarriage rate was no different between the two groups (1 RCT, Peto OR 1.66, 95% CI 0.41, 6.81). The RCTs reporting embryo freezing showed no difference (Peto OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.00, 2.94), however the two quasi-random trials showed a significant difference in favour of the Day 2/3 group (Peto OR 2.99, 95% CI 1.88, 4.75). Embryo transfer cancellation rates were significantly higher in the Day 5/6 group (5 RCTs: Peto OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40, 0.83). There was no significant difference in the rate of multiple pregnancies or the rate of high order pregnancies (3 RCTs, Peto OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.30, 1.12)(2 RCTs, Peto OR 7.88, 95% CI 0.49, 126.30 respectively). REVIEWER'S

conclusionsOverall this review of the best available evidence based on data from randomised controlled trials, suggests that to date little difference in the major outcome parameters has been demonstrated between early embryo transfer and blastocyst culture. Collectively, the increase in cancellation and the possible decrease in cryopreservation rates suggest that the routine practice of blastocyst culture should be offered to patients with caution. The subgroup of trials employing sequential media, did however demonstrate a substantial improvement in implantation rates and similar pregnancy rates, despite the transfer of less embryos. Whether this trend will culminate in convincing higher live birth rates per woman, has yet to be validated.

Indexed as

Embryo TransferBlastocystCleavage Stage, OvumFemaleHumansPregnancyPregnancy, MultiplePregnancy OutcomePregnancy RateRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.