SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2005
Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted conception.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Comparison of pregnancy outcomes after vitrification at the cleavage and blastocyst stage: a meta-analysis.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2018Pooled it
- Establishment and validation of a nomogram for subsequent first-cycle live births in patients diagnosed with recurrent implantation failure: a population-based analysis.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024Trial
- Development and validation of a clinical prediction model for blastocyst formation during IVF/ICSI-ET.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024Article
- Is Blastocyst Culture Responsible for Higher Pregnancy Rates? A Critical Analysis of the Day of Optimal Embryo Transfer and Embryo Quality.JBRA assisted reproduction · 2022Article
- Application of a Nomogram for Predicting the Risk of Subchorionic Hematoma in Early Pregnancy With In Vitro Fertilization-Embryo Transfer/Frozen Embryo Transfer.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2021Article
- Is preimplantation genetic diagnosis the ideal embryo selection method in aneuploidy screening?The Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences · 2014Review
- Clinical outcome of fresh and vitrified-warmed blastocyst and cleavage-stage embryo transfers in ethnic Chinese ART patients.Journal of ovarian research · 2012Article
- Murine pre-embryo oxygen consumption and developmental competence.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2007Article
- Preferable correlation to blastocyst development and pregnancy rates with a new embryo grading system specific for day 3 embryos.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2007Article
- In vitro fertilization and multiple pregnancies: an evidence-based analysis.Ontario health technology assessment series · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
- Update of
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the past decade, advances in the understanding of nutrient requirements of embryos, has led to the evolution of culture media designed to support extended culture of embryos in vitro from the standard procedure of 2 to 3 days (for early cleavage embryo transfer) to 5 to 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. Since the initial widespread introduction of blastocyst culture in 1998, there has been conflicting reports about the clinical benefits of this technique.
objectivesTo determine if blastocyst stage embryo transfers (ETs) affects success rates compared with cleavage stage ETs and investigate what factors may influence this. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials. We also searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE and Bio extracts. Attempts were made to identify trials from the National Research Register, the Clinical Trials Register and the citation lists of review articles and included trials. The last search date was May 2005. The first or corresponding author of each included trial was 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 45 trials that were identified, 16 trials met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed. Primary outcomes were rates of live birth, clinical pregnancy and multiple-pregnancy rates per couple. Secondary outcomes were rates of miscarriage, failure to transfer embryos, freezing, implantation and high order pregnancy and per cycle data. Quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two review authors. Meta-analysis was performed using odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean differences for binary outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN
resultsThere was no evidence of a difference in live-birth rate per couple between the two treatment groups (7 RCTs; OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.44 [Day 2/3 34.3% vs. Day 5/6 35.4%]); in the clinical pregnancy rate per couple (15 RCTs; OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.26 [Day 2/3 38.8% vs. 40.3%]) even for good prognosis patients (6 RCTs: OR 96% 1.06 CI 0.83 to 1.34). There was also no difference in multiple-pregnancy rate per couple (12 RCTs; OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.13) particularly in trials where equal numbers of embryos were transferred in both groups (6 RCTs: OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.32). There was no evidence of a difference in high order multiple-pregnancy rates per couple (5 RCTs; OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.33) or miscarriage rate per couple between the two groups (9 RCTs; OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.01). Rates of embryo freezing per couple was significantly higher in Day 2 to 3 transfers (9 RCTs; OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.57). Failure to transfer any embryos per couple was significantly higher in the Day 5 to 6 group (10 RCTs: OR 3.21, 95% CI 2.15 to 4.81[Day 2/3 3.5% vs D 5/6 10.1%]), but was not significantly different for good prognosis patients (7RCTs, OR 1.58 95% CI 0.65 to 3.82). AUTHORS'
conclusionsThere is no evidence of a difference in live birth or pregnancy outcomes between Day 2 to 3 and Day 5 to 6 transfer of embryos. Blastocyst transfer was associated with an increase in failure to transfer any embryos in a cycle and a decrease in embryo freezing rates. In the absence of data on cumulative live birth rates resulting from fresh and thawed cycles, it is not possible to determine if this represents an advantage or disadvantage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
16235296What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.