Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29782139›Full record

SynthesisJBRA assisted reproduction2018

Obstetric outcomes after fresh versus frozen-thawed embryo transfers: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Matheus Roque, Marcello Valle, Marcos Sampaio, Selmo Geber

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JBRA assisted reproduction, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
16.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 72 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Fresh versus frozen embryo transfers in assisted reproduction.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Maternal and neonatal outcomes followingExperimental and therapeutic medicine · 2022
    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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Matheus RoqueORIGEN - Center for Reproductive Medicine, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Marcello ValleORIGEN - Center for Reproductive Medicine, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Marcos SampaioORIGEN - Center for Reproductive Medicine, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Selmo GeberUniversidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
D’Or Institute for Research and Education · BRBrazilian College of Animal Reproduction · BRUniversidade Federal de Minas Gerais · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate if there are differences in the risks of obstetric outcomes in IVF/ICSI singleton pregnancies when compared fresh to frozen-thawed embryo transfers (FET).

methodsThis was a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the obstetric outcomes in singleton pregnancies after FET and fresh embryo transfer. The outcomes included in this study were pregnancy-induced hypertension (PIH), pre-eclampsia, placenta previa, and placenta accreta.

resultsThe search yielded 654 papers, 6 of which met the inclusion criteria and reported on obstetric outcomes. When comparing pregnancies that arose from FET or fresh embryo transfer, there was an increase in the risk of obstetric complications in pregnancies resulting from FET when compared to those emerging from fresh embryo transfers in PIH (aOR 1.82; 95% CI 1.24-2.68), pre-eclampsia (aOR 1.32, 95% CI 1.07, 1.63), and placenta accreta (aOR 3.51, 95% CI 2.04-6.05). There were no significant differences in the risk between the FET and fresh embryo transfer groups when evaluating placenta previa (aOR 0.70; 95% CI 0.46-1.08).

conclusionThe obstetric outcomes observed in pregnancies arising from ART may differ among fresh and FET cycles. Thus, when evaluating to perform a fresh embryo transfer or a freeze-all cycle, these differences found in obstetric outcomes between fresh and FET should be taken into account. The adverse obstetric outcomes after FET found in this study emphasize that the freeze-all policy should not be offered to all the patients, but should be offered to those with a clear indication of the benefit of this strategy.

Indexed as

Pregnancy OutcomeCryopreservationEmbryo TransferFemaleFertilization in VitroHumansPregnancyPregnancy Ratefresh embryo transferfrozen-thawed embryo transferObstetric outcomeplacenta

Identifiers

PMID29782139
PMCPMC6106638
OpenAlexW2804647341

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.