Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27976360›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2016

Day three versus day two embryo transfer following in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection.

Julie Brown, Salim Daya, Phill Matson

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
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. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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.

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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Assisted reproductive technology: an overview of Cochrane Reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  2. Day 2 versus day 3 embryo transfer in patients withThe Journal of international medical research · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Julie BrownLiggins Institute, The University of Auckland, Park Rd, Grafton, Auckland, New Zealand, 1142.
Salim DayaDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, 2407 Carrington Place, Oakville, ON, Canada, L6J 7R6.
Phill MatsonFertility North, Suite 30, Level 2, Joondalup Private Hospital, 60 Shenton Avenu, Joondalup, Australia, WA 6919.
University of Auckland · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEmbryo transfer (ET) was traditionally performed two days after oocyte retrieval; however, developments in culture media have allowed embryos to be maintained in culture for longer periods. Delaying transfer from Day two to Day three would allow for further development of the embryo and might have a positive effect on pregnancy outcomes.

objectivesTo determine if there are any differences in live birth and pregnancy rates when embryo transfer is performed on day three after oocyte retrieval, compared with day two, in infertile couples undergoing treatment with in vitro fertilisation (IVF), including intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid) from the inception of the databases to 26th April 2016. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO portal for ongoing trials plus citation lists of relevant publications, review articles and included studies, as well as abstracts of appropriate scientific meetings. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that compared Day 3 versus Day 2 embryo transfer after oocyte retrieval during an IVF or ICSI treatment cycle in infertile couples. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. The primary outcome measures were live birth rate and ongoing pregnancy rate. MAIN

resultsWe included 15 studies. Fourteen studies reported data per woman (2894 women) and one study reported data per cycle (969 cycles). The quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach ranged from moderate quality to very low quality. The main reasons for downgrading evidence were poor methodological reporting, selective reporting, inconsistency and imprecision. Live birth per woman - Overall, there was no evidence of a difference in live birth rate between Day three and Day two embryo transfer (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.23; three studies, n = 1200 women; I AUTHORS'

conclusionsTwelve of 15 studies contributed data that could be included in meta-analyses. The quality of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low. Only three of the 15 studies reported data for live birth, although the data for ongoing pregnancy and clinical pregnancy are consistent with the live birth data, suggesting no difference between Day three and Day two embryo transfer for these outcomes. There was no evidence of a difference identified between Day three and Day two embryo transfer for multiple pregnancy, miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy per woman randomised. No data were reported for complication rate, fetal abnormality or woman's evaluation of the procedure. The current evidence has not identified any evidence of differences in pregnancy outcomes between Day two and Day three embryo transfers. Any further studies comparing these timings of embryo transfer are unlikely to alter the findings and we suggest that this review no longer be updated.

Indexed as

Embryo TransferFertilization in VitroSperm Injections, IntracytoplasmicAbortion, SpontaneousEmbryonic DevelopmentFemaleHumansLive BirthOocyte RetrievalPregnancyPregnancy OutcomePregnancy RateRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID27976360
PMCPMC6463848
OpenAlexW2107221694

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.