Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28940130›Full record

SynthesisJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2018

Comparison of pregnancy outcomes after vitrification at the cleavage and blastocyst stage: a meta-analysis.

MeiFang Zeng, SuQin Su, LiuMing Li

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. One Plus One is Better than Two: An Approach Towards a Single Blastocyst Transfer Policy for All IVF Patients.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2022
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Preimplantation Genetic Testing: Where We Are Today.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

MeiFang ZengReproductive Medicine Center, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, China.
SuQin SuReproductive Medicine Center, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, China.
LiuMing LiReproductive Medicine Center, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, China. liliuming1231@163.com.
Guangxi Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis systematic review sought to evaluate the clinical outcomes of vitrification at the cleavage stage and blastocyst stage for embryo transfer in patients undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment.

methodsWe searched for related comparative studies published in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases up to July 2017. The primary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and embryo implantation rate (IR). Secondary outcomes were multiple pregnancy rate (MPR), miscarriage rate (MR), live birth rate (LBR), and ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR). The Mantel-Haenszel fixed effects model and random effects model were used to analyze the summary risks ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

resultsEight studies with more than 6590 cycles were included in our meta-analysis. Seven studies were observational retrospective comparative studies. One was a prospective study. Overall, the current study summarizes information from 6590 vitrification warming cycles (cleavage stage n = 4594; blastocysts n = 1996). There was no difference in the primary outcome clinical pregnancy rate (RR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.90-1.04; fixed effects model; I

conclusionIn summary, this meta-analysis shows that vitrification at any stage has no detrimental effect on clinical outcome. Blastocyst transfer will still remain a favorable and promising option in ART. Due to the small sample evaluated in the pool of included studies, large-scale, prospective, and randomized controlled trials are required to determine if these small effects are clinically relevant.

Indexed as

BlastocystEmbryo TransferPregnancy OutcomeVitrificationCleavage Stage, OvumFemaleHumansObservational Studies as TopicPregnancyPregnancy RateRetrospective StudiesBlastocystCleavage stageClinical outcomeEmbryo transferVitrification

Identifiers

PMID28940130
PMCPMC5758463
OpenAlexW2758683055

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.