Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21177530›Full record

SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2010

Clinical effectiveness of elective single versus double embryo transfer: meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials.

D J McLernon, K Harrild, C Bergh, M J Davies, D de Neubourg, J C M Dumoulin, J Gerris, J A M Kremer, H Martikainen, B W Mol and 7 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 96 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
96citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
39.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

96 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 370 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. PGT-A: who and when? Α systematic review and network meta-analysis of RCTs.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2021
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Vasodilators for women undergoing fertility treatment.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

36 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 6 institutions in 6 countries.

D J McLernonMedical Statistics Team, Section of Population Health, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UK. d.mclernon@abdn.ac.uk
K Harrild
C Bergh
M J Davies
D de Neubourg
J C M Dumoulin
J Gerris
J A M Kremer
H Martikainen
B W Mol
R J Norman
A Thurin-Kjellberg
A Tiitinen
A P A van Montfoort
A M van Peperstraten
E Van Royen
S Bhattacharya
University of Aberdeen · GBAberdeen Maternity Hospital · GBRadboud University Medical Center · NLHelsinki University Hospital · FIMaastricht University Medical Centre · NLSahlgrenska University Hospital · SE

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the effectiveness of elective single embryo transfer versus double embryo transfer on the outcomes of live birth, multiple live birth, miscarriage, preterm birth, term singleton birth, and low birth weight after fresh embryo transfer, and on the outcomes of cumulative live birth and multiple live birth after fresh and frozen embryo transfers.

designOne stage meta-analysis of individual patient data. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review of English and non-English articles from Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (up to 2008). Additional studies were identified by contact with clinical experts and searches of bibliographies of all relevant primary articles. Search terms included embryo transfer, randomised controlled trial, controlled clinical trial, single embryo transfer, and double embryo transfer. Review methods Comparisons of the clinical effectiveness of cleavage stage (day 2 or 3) elective single versus double embryo transfer after fresh or frozen in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatments were included. Trials were included if the intervention differed only in terms of the intended number of embryos to be transferred. Trials that involved only blastocyst (day five) transfers were excluded.

resultsIndividual patient data were received for every patient recruited to all eight eligible trials (n=1367). A total of 683 and 684 women randomised to the single and double embryo transfer arms, respectively, were included in the analysis. Baseline characteristics in the two groups were comparable. The overall live birth rate in a fresh IVF cycle was lower after single (181/683, 27%) than double embryo transfer (285/683, 42%) (adjusted odds ratio 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.63), as was the multiple birth rate (3/181 (2%) v 84/285 (29%)) (0.04, 0.01 to 0.12). An additional frozen single embryo transfer, however, resulted in a cumulative live birth rate not significantly lower than the rate after one fresh double embryo transfer (132/350 (38%) v 149/353 (42%) (0.85, 0.62 to 1.15), with a minimal cumulative risk of multiple birth (1/132 (1%) v 47/149 (32%)). The odds of a term singleton birth (that is, over 37 weeks) after elective single embryo transfer was almost five times higher than the odds after double embryo transfer (4.93, 2.98 to 8.18).

conclusionsElective single embryo transfer results in a higher chance of delivering a term singleton live birth compared with double embryo transfer. Although this strategy yields a lower pregnancy rate than a double embryo transfer in a fresh IVF cycle, this difference is almost completely overcome by an additional frozen single embryo transfer cycle. The multiple pregnancy rate after elective single embryo transfer is comparable with that observed in spontaneous pregnancies.

Indexed as

Abortion, SpontaneousAdultEmbryo TransferFemaleFertilization in VitroHumansLive BirthMaternal AgePregnancyPregnancy, MultiplePregnancy RateRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID21177530
PMCPMC3006495
OpenAlexW2172239718

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.