Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27503701›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2016

Effect of assisted hatching on pregnancy outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Da Li, Da-Lei Yang, Jing An, Jiao Jiao, Yi-Ming Zhou, Qi-Jun Wu, Xiu-Xia Wang

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Hatching is modulated by microRNA-378a-3p derived from extracellular vesicles secreted by blastocysts.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Da LiCenter of Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang 110004, China.
Da-Lei YangCenter of Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang 110004, China.
Jing AnCenter of Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang 110004, China.
Jiao JiaoCenter of Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang 110004, China.
Yi-Ming ZhouDepartment of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Institutes of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Qi-Jun WuDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang 110004, China.
Xiu-Xia WangCenter of Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang 110004, China.

Funding

Vanderbilt-Shanghai Chronic Disease Research Training ProgramD43TW008313 · FIC · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI SHU, XIAO-OU · 2009 to 2013
$1.1M
FIC NIH HHS D43 TW008313
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Emerging evidence suggests that assisted hatching (AH) techniques may improve clinical pregnancy rates, particularly in poor prognosis patients; however, there still remains considerable uncertainty. We conducted a meta-analysis to verify the effect of AH on pregnancy outcomes. We searched for related studies published in PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane library databases from start dates to October 10, 2015. Totally, 36 randomized controlled trials with 6459 participants were included. Summary odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for whether by AH or not were estimated. We found a significant increase in clinical pregnancy (OR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.00-1.36, I(2) = 48.3%) and multiple pregnancy rates (OR = 1.50, 95% CI = 1.11-2.01, I(2) = 44.0%) with AH when compared to the control. Numerous subgroup analyses stratified by hatching method, conception mode, extent of AH, embryos transfer status, and previous failure history were also carried out. Interestingly, significant results of clinical pregnancy as well as multiple pregnancy rates were observed among women who received intracytoplasmic sperm injection, and who received AH which the zona were completely removed. In summary, this meta-analysis supports that AH was associated with an increased chance of achieving clinical pregnancy and multiple pregnancy. Whether AH significantly changes live birth and miscarriage rates needs further investigations.

Indexed as

Embryo ImplantationFertilization in VitroPregnancy OutcomeAbortion, SpontaneousAdultFemaleHumansLive BirthOdds RatioPregnancyPregnancy RateRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSperm Injections, IntracytoplasmicZona Pellucida

Identifiers

PMID27503701
PMCPMC4977517

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.