ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2016
The freezing method of cleavage stage embryos has no impact on the weight of the newborns.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Oocyte, embryo and blastocyst cryopreservation in ART: systematic review and meta-analysis comparing slow-freezing versus vitrification to produce evidence for the development of global guidance.Human reproduction update · 2017Pooled it
- Risk of adverse pregnancy and perinatal outcomes after high technology infertility treatment: a comprehensive systematic review.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2016Pooled it
- Neonatal and maternal outcomes following transfer of vitrified embryos compared with slow-frozen and fresh embryos: a retrospective study in singletons.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Blood pressure and lipid profiles in children born after ART with frozen embryo transfer.Human reproduction open · 2024Article
- Effect of frozen/thawed embryo transfer on birthweight, macrosomia, and low birthweight rates in US singleton infants.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to study the effect of the embryo freezing method on the birth weight of newborns from frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles, and the pregnancy results of cleavage stage embryos cryopreserved by slow freezing or vitrification.
methodsThis is a retrospective cohort study undertaken in a University Hospital IVF unit using concurrently both the slow-freezing and the vitrification techniques. All frozen-thawed and vitrified-warmed day 2 and day 3 embryo transfers during the time period from 1 April 2009 to 31 November 2013 were included in the study.
resultsThere was no statistically significant weight difference between newborns from vitrified or slow-frozen embryos (3588 vs 3670 g). A higher post-thaw viability rate was achieved after cryopreservation by the vitrification technique compared to the slow-freezing protocol (83.4 vs 61.4%). The miscarriage rate was lower in the vitrification group (15.7 vs 29.0%). The live birth rates were similar (19.5 vs 19.1%) in the slow-freezing and vitrification groups, respectively. Among vitrified embryos, 7.4 embryos needed to be thawed to produce one delivery; in the slow-freezing group, that number was 11.9.
conclusionsThe freezing method has no impact on the weight of the newborn. With lower post-thaw survival rates and higher miscarriage rates, the slow-freezing cryopreservation protocol is inferior to the vitrification technique.
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.