Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27357126›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2016

Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology.

Demián Glujovsky, Cindy Farquhar, Andrea Marta Quinteiro Retamar, Cristian Roberto Alvarez Sedo, Deborah Blake

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 195 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
195citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
66.6field-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.

NCT03497052 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Blastocyst Developmental Rate in Two Different Single Step Culture Media: a Sibling Oocyte Prospective Non-interventional Study

TypeobservationalSponsorClinica Valle GiuliaRan2018 to 2019Enrolled160ConditionsEmbryo DevelopmentArmsIn vitro culture in medium 1, In vitro culture in medium 2
NCT03764865 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Day 3 vs Day 5 Embryo Transfer for Patients With Low Embryo Numbers Going Through in Vitro Fertilization (PILOT STUDY)

TypeinterventionalSponsorBeth Israel Deaconess Medical CenterRan2021 to 2022Enrolled10ConditionsInfertilityArmsday 3 uterine transfer, day 5 uterine transfer
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

195 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 703 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Congenital anomaly and perinatal outcome following blastocyst- vs cleavage-stage embryo transfer: systematic review and network meta-analysis.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2023
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Assisted reproductive technology: an overview of Cochrane Reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Demián GlujovskyReproductive Medicine, CEGYR (Centro de Estudios en Genética y Reproducción), Viamonte 1432,, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Cindy Farquhar
Andrea Marta Quinteiro Retamar
Cristian Roberto Alvarez Sedo
Deborah Blake
University of Auckland · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdvances in cell culture media have led to a shift in in vitro fertilisation (IVF) practice from cleavage stage embryo transfer to blastocyst stage transfer. The rationale for blastocyst transfer is to improve both uterine and embryonic synchronicity and enable self selection of viable embryos, thus resulting in better live birth rates.

objectivesTo determine whether blastocyst stage (day 5 to 6) embryo transfers improve the live birth rate, and other associated outcomes, compared with cleavage stage (day 2 to 3) embryo transfers. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library; 2016, Issue 4), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Bio extracts from inception to 4th April 2016. We also searched registers of ongoing trials and the reference lists of studies retrieved. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared the effectiveness of blastocyst versus cleavage stage transfers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were live birth and cumulative clinical pregnancy rates. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, high order pregnancy, miscarriage, failure to transfer embryos, and embryo freezing. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods. MAIN

resultsWe included 27 RCTs (4031 couples or women).The live birth rate following fresh transfer was higher in the blastocyst transfer group (odds ratio (OR) 1.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 1.82; 13 RCTs, 1630 women, I(2) = 45%, low quality evidence) following fresh transfer. This suggests that if 29% of women achieve live birth after fresh cleavage stage transfer, between 32% and 42% would do so after fresh blastocyst stage transfer.There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates per couple of cumulative pregnancy following fresh and frozen-thawed transfer after one oocyte retrieval (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.22; 5 RCTs, 632 women, I(2) = 71%, very low quality evidence).The clinical pregnancy rate was also higher in the blastocyst transfer group, following fresh transfer (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.47; 27 RCTs, 4031 women, I(2) = 56%, moderate quality evidence). This suggests that if 36% of women achieve clinical pregnancy after fresh cleavage stage transfer, between 39% and 46% would do so after fresh blastocyst stage transfer.There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of multiple pregnancy (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.33; 19 RCTs, 3019 women, I(2) = 30%, low quality evidence), or miscarriage (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.50; 18 RCTs, 2917 women, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence). These data are incomplete as under 70% of studies reported these outcomes.Embryo freezing rates were lower in the blastocyst transfer group (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.57; 14 RCTs, 2292 women, I(2) = 84%, low quality evidence). This suggests that if 60% of women have embryos frozen after cleavage stage transfer, between 37% and 46% would do so after blastocyst stage transfer. Failure to transfer any embryos was higher in the blastocyst transfer group (OR 2.50, 95% CI 1.76 to 3.55; 17 RCTs, 2577 women, I(2) = 36%, moderate quality evidence). This suggests that if 1% of women have no embryos transferred in (planned) fresh cleavage stage transfer, between 2% and 4% will have no embryos transferred in (planned) fresh blastocyst stage transfer.The evidence was of low quality for most outcomes. The main limitation was serious risk of bias, associated with failure to describe acceptable methods of randomisation, and unclear or high risk of attrition bias. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is low quality evidence for live birth and moderate quality evidence for clinical pregnancy that fresh blastocyst stage transfer is associated with higher rates than fresh cleavage stage transfer. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in cumulative pregnancy rates derived from fresh and frozen-thawed cycles following a single oocyte retrieval, but the evidence for this outcome was very low quality. Thus, although there is a benefit favouring blastocyst transfer in fresh cycles, it remains unclear whether the day of transfer impacts on cumulative live birth and pregnancy rates. Future RCTs should report rates of live birth, cumulative live birth, and miscarriage to enable couples or women undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) and service providers to make well informed decisions on the best treatment option available.

Indexed as

BlastocystPregnancy RateCleavage Stage, OvumEmbryo TransferFemaleHumansLive BirthPregnancyPregnancy, MultiplePregnancy OutcomeRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID27357126
OpenAlexW1882638238

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.