Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28570713›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2017

Does time-lapse imaging have favorable results for embryo incubation and selection compared with conventional methods in clinical in vitro fertilization? A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Minghao Chen, Shiyou Wei, Junyan Hu, Jing Yuan, Fenghua Liu

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

Synthesis in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  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

5 authors.

Minghao ChenReproductive Center, Guangdong Women and Children Hospital, Guangzhou, China.
Shiyou WeiDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Junyan HuDepartment of Emergency, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Jing YuanSchool of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China.
Fenghua LiuReproductive Center, Guangdong Women and Children Hospital, Guangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe present study aimed to undertake a review of available evidence assessing whether time-lapse imaging (TLI) has favorable outcomes for embryo incubation and selection compared with conventional methods in clinical in vitro fertilization (IVF).

methodsUsing PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library and ClinicalTrial.gov up to February 2017 to search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TLI versus conventional methods. Both studies randomized women and oocytes were included. For studies randomized women, the primary outcomes were live birth and ongoing pregnancy, the secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy and miscarriage; for studies randomized oocytes, the primary outcome was blastocyst rate, the secondary outcome was good quality embryo on Day 2/3. Subgroup analysis was conducted based on different incubation and embryo selection between groups.

resultsTen RCTs were included, four randomized oocytes and six randomized women. For oocyte-based review, the pool-analysis observed no significant difference between TLI group and control group for blastocyst rate [relative risk (RR) 1.08, 95% CI 0.94-1.25, I2 = 0%, two studies, including 1154 embryos]. The quality of evidence was moderate for all outcomes in oocyte-based review. For woman-based review, only one study provided live birth rate (RR 1,23, 95% CI 1.06-1.44,I2 N/A, one study, including 842 women), the pooled result showed no significant difference in ongoing pregnancy rate (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.80-1.36, I2 = 59%, four studies, including 1403 women) between two groups. The quality of the evidence was low or very low for all outcomes in woman-based review.

conclusionsCurrently there is insufficient evidence to support that TLI is superior to conventional methods for human embryo incubation and selection. In consideration of the limitations and flaws of included studies, more well designed RCTs are still in need to comprehensively evaluate the effectiveness of clinical TLI use.

Indexed as

Fertilization in VitroRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicFemaleHumans

Identifiers

PMID28570713
PMCPMC5453598

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.