ArticleJournal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India2016
Outcome Analysis of Day-3 Frozen Embryo Transfer v/s Fresh Embryo Transfer in Infertility: A Prospective Therapeutic Study in Indian Scenario.
Article in Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pregnancy Outcome Difference between Fresh and Frozen Embryos in Women without Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2021Pooled it
- Fresh versus frozen embryo transfers in assisted reproduction.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Fresh versus frozen embryo transfers in assisted reproduction.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Improving the clinical outcomes by extended culture of day 3 embryos with low blastomere number to blastocyst stage following frozen-thawed embryo transfer.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAdvanced fertilization techniques like frozen embryo transfer (FET) and assisted reproductive technology have become popular and commonly used methods to treat patients suffering from infertility. Incidences of infertility are on a rise due to increased representation of females in the work place, delay in marriages, stress, and ignorance.
methodsWe performed this prospective therapeutic study to compare FET and fresh embryo transfer in the treatment of infertility in terms of conception rate, patient acceptance, complications, and patient's compliance. A prospective screening therapeutic study on 108 patients, from September 2013 to September 2014 in Karnataka, India, randomized the patients into 2 groups (n = 54), Group-I treated with day-3 FET while Group-II was treated with fresh embryo transfer, after performing ICSI.
resultsIn 108 patients, 45 % patients were within 35 years of age, 35 % were in the age group 35-39. Significantly, 22 (40.75 %) patients treated with FET conceived (P = 0.022), whereas 16 (29.63 %) patients treated with fresh embryo transfer conceived (P = 0.59). DISCUSSION: There is limited published literature from the subcontinent, comparing techniques like FET and embryo transfers in the treatment of infertility. Awareness and economic reforms must be formulated in India to facilitate individuals facing infertility problems to conceive.
conclusionFET has better and significant conception rates compared to fresh embryo transfers. FET shares an advantage of providing good quality embryos for future and subsequent implantations in cases of failure. Patient counseling and motivation play a pivotal role in the success of therapeutic procedure.
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.