ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2013
Comparison of clinical outcomes between single and double vitrified-warmed blastocyst embryo transfer according to the day of vitrification.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pregnancy and perinatal outcomes after day 5 versus day 6 blastocyst-stage embryo transfer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Pooled it
- Does double cryopreservation as well as double biopsy affect embryo viability and clinical outcomes? Evidence from a systematic review of the literature.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Pooled it
- Day 5 versus Day 6 blastocyst transfers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2019Pooled it
- Beyond aneuploidy: embryo morphology, maternal age, and miscarriage dynamics in PGT-A selected single embryo transfer.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Article
- Effect of repeated vitrification of human embryos on pregnancy and neonatal outcomes.Journal of ovarian research · 2024Article
- No advantage of single day 6 good-quality blastocyst transfer versus single day 5 poor-quality blastocyst transfer in frozen-thawed cycles stratified by age: a retrospective study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Article
- Comparing Day 5 versus Day 6 euploid blastocyst in frozen embryo transfer and developing a predictive model for optimizing outcomes: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Article
- Obstetric, Neonatal, and Clinical Outcomes of Day 6 vs. Day 5 Vitrified-Warmed Blastocyst Transfers: Retrospective Cohort Study With Propensity Score Matching.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2020Article
- Pregnancy rates for single embryo transfer (SET) of day 5 and day 6 blastocysts after cryopreservation by vitrification and slow freeze.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2017Article
- Efficacy of hyaluronan-rich transfer medium on implantation and pregnancy rates in fresh and frozen-thawed blastocyst transfers in Korean women with previous implantation failure.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the efficacy of single vitrified-warmed blastocyst embryo transfer (SVBT) versus double vitrified-warmed blastocyst embryo transfer (DVBT) according to the day of vitrification.
methodsThis retrospective study included a total of 1,051 cycles in women less than 37 years of age with their autologous SVBT cryopreserved on day 5 (5d-SVBT, n = 737) or day 6 (6d-SVBT, n = 154) and DVBT on day 5 (5d-DVBT, n = 129) or day 6 (6d-DVBT, n = 31) from January 2009 to December 2011.
resultsThe clinical pregnancy rate (41.8 % vs. 48.1 %, p = 0.184) and ongoing pregnancy rate (36.6 % vs. 45.0 %, p = 0.072) were not significantly different between the 5d-SVBT group and the 5d-DVBT group. However, the clinical pregnancy (29.9 % vs. 58.1 %, p = 0.003) and ongoing pregnancy rates (23.4 % vs. 51.6 %, p = 0.001) were significantly lower in the 6d-SVBT group compared with those in the 6d-DVBT group. The implantation rate (42.2 % vs. 34.5 %, p = 0.03) of the 5d-SVBT group was significantly higher than that of the 5d-DVBT group, while the implantation rate (29.9 % vs. 37.1 %, p = 0.303) of the 6d-SVBT group was not statistically different compared with that in the 6d-DVBT group. The multiple pregnancy rates (1.0 % in the 5d-SVBT group vs. 38.7 % in the 5d-DVBT group, p < 0.001 and 0 % in the 6d-SVBT group vs. 22.2 % in the 6d-DVBT group, p = 0.001) were statistically significantly lower in the SVBT group compared with those in the DVBT group regardless of the day of vitrification.
conclusionsThis study showed that the 5d-SVBT resulted in comparable clinical outcomes compared to the 5d-DVBT while the 6d-SVBT yielded significantly lower clinical outcomes compared to the 6d-DVBT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.