Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30827784›Full record

Trial reportLancet (London, England)2019

Frozen versus fresh single blastocyst transfer in ovulatory women: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

Daimin Wei, Jia-Yin Liu, Yun Sun, Yuhua Shi, Bo Zhang, Jian-Qiao Liu, Jichun Tan, Xiaoyan Liang, Yunxia Cao, Ze Wang and 20 more

5 registry-linked trialsAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Lancet (London, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 5 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 221 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
221citing papers in PubMed, 11 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.

NCT06064669 narecruitingstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Effect of Metformin on Healthy Live Birth After In-vitro Fertilization in Women With Prediabetes Mellitus: a Multicenter Double-blind Placebo Controlled Randomized Trial

Ran2024Enrolled988Registered outcomes26Posted comparisons0ConditionsIn-Vitro Fertilization, Metformin, PrediabetesArmsMetformin pretreatment before endometrial preparation for frozen embryo transfer, Metformin pretreatment before ovarian stimulation, Placebo pretreatment before endometrial preparation for frozen embryo transfer, Placebo pretreatment before ovarian stimulation
PMID 34281467PMID 25945500PMID 29045765PMID 18826999PMID 11832527PMID 9096977PMID 8732721PMID 36916886PMID 36720508PMID 36507649PMID 36497026PMID 36396532other papers from this trial
Open the trial in the graph
NCT03998761 nacompletednot on this map

Micronized Progesterone Versus Micronized Progesterone Plus Dydrogesterone for Luteal Phase Support in Frozen - Thawed Transfer: a Prospective Cohort Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorMỹ Đức HospitalRan2019 to 2021Enrolled1,364ConditionsInfertilityArmsMicronized Progesterone, Micronized progesterone plus dydrogesterone
NCT04099784 completednot on this map

Follow-up of Children Born From Freeze-only Versus Fresh Embryo Transfer: a Follow-up of a Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeobservationalSponsorMỹ Đức HospitalRan2019 to 2019Enrolled255ConditionsInfertility, IVFArmsDevelopmental score according to The Ages & Stages Questionnaires®, Third Edition - ASQ®-3, Physical development and General Health, Developmental Red flags
NCT05758064 phase2 / phase3unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

How to Rescue Hormonal Replacement Frozen Embryo Transfer Cycle With Low Serum Progesterone? A Randomized Control Trial.

TypeinterventionalSponsorEl Shatby University Hospital for Obstetrics and GynecologyRan2023 to 2023Enrolled120ConditionsHormonal Replacement Frozen Embryo Transfer CycleArmsDuphaston, prolutex
NCT05899010 phase3recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

A Phase III Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of Two Formulations of Vaginal Micronized Progesterone

TypeinterventionalSponsorFundación Santiago Dexeus FontRan2023 to 2028Enrolled1,020ConditionsInfertilityArmsVaginal progesterone 600mg daily, Vaginal progesterone 800mg daily
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

221 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Fresh versus frozen embryo transfers in assisted reproduction.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

161 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

30 authors.

Daimin WeiCenter for Reproductive Medicine, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, China; The Key Laboratory of Reproductive Endocrinology of Ministry of Education, Jinan, China; National Research Center for Assisted Reproductive Technology and Reproductive Genetics, Jinan, China.
Jia-Yin LiuDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University/Jiangsu Province Hospital, Nanjing, China; State Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine, Nanjing, China.
Yun SunCenter for Reproductive Medicine, Ren Ji Hospital, Shanghai, China; School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China; Shanghai Key Laboratory of Assisted Reproduction and Reproductive Genetics, Shanghai, China.
Yuhua ShiCenter for Reproductive Medicine, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, China; The Key Laboratory of Reproductive Endocrinology of Ministry of Education, Jinan, China; National Research Center for Assisted Reproductive Technology and Reproductive Genetics, Jinan, China.
Bo ZhangCenter for Reproductive Medicine, Maternal and Child Health Hospital in Guangxi, Guangxi, China.
Jian-Qiao LiuDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, Key Laboratory for Major Obstetric Diseases of Guangdong Province, and Key Laboratory for Reproduction and Genetics of Guangdong Higher Education Institutes, the Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Jichun TanReproductive Medicine Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shengjing Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Xiaoyan LiangReproductive Medicine Research Centre, the 6th Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Yunxia CaoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Reproductive Medicine Center, The First Affiliated Hospital, Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.
Ze WangCenter for Reproductive Medicine, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, China; The Key Laboratory of Reproductive Endocrinology of Ministry of Education, Jinan, China; National Research Center for Assisted Reproductive Technology and Reproductive Genetics, Jinan, China.
Yingying QinCenter for Reproductive Medicine, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, China; The Key Laboratory of Reproductive Endocrinology of Ministry of Education, Jinan, China; National Research Center for Assisted Reproductive Technology and Reproductive Genetics, Jinan, China.
Han ZhaoCenter for Reproductive Medicine, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, China; The Key Laboratory of Reproductive Endocrinology of Ministry of Education, Jinan, China; National Research Center for Assisted Reproductive Technology and Reproductive Genetics, Jinan, China.
Yi ZhouCenter for Reproductive Medicine, Qingdao Women's and Children's Hospital, Qingdao University, Qingdao, China.
Haiqin RenDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, Shenyang Dongfang Jinghua Hospital, Shenyang, China.
Guimin HaoDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, the Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China.
Xiufeng LingDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, the affiliated Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital with Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital, Nanjing, China.
Junzhao ZhaoReproductive Medical Center, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical College and Yuying Children's hospital, Wenzhou, China.
Yunshan ZhangCenter for Reproductive Medicine, Tianjin Central Hospital of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tianjin, China.
Xiujuan QiCenter for Reproductive Medicine, the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, China.
Lin ZhangDepartment of Occupational Hygiene, School of Public Health and Management, Weifang Medical University, Weifang, China.
Xiaohui DengCenter for Reproductive Medicine, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, China.
Xiaoli ChenDivision of Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Yimin ZhuDepartment of Reproductive Endocrinology, Women's Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Xiaohong WangReproductive Medical Center, Tangdu Hospital, the Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Li-Feng TianReproductive Medical Center, Jiangxi Provincial Maternal and Child Health Hospital, Nanchang, China.
Qun LvCenter for Reproductive Medicine, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, Chengdu, China.
Xiang MaDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University/Jiangsu Province Hospital, Nanjing, China; State Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine, Nanjing, China.
Heping ZhangDepartment of Biostatistics, Yale University School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA.
Richard S LegroDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA.
Zi-Jiang ChenCenter for Reproductive Medicine, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, China; The Key Laboratory of Reproductive Endocrinology of Ministry of Education, Jinan, China; National Research Center for Assisted Reproductive Technology and Reproductive Genetics, Jinan, China; Center for Reproductive Medicine, Ren Ji Hospital, Shanghai, China; School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China; Shanghai Key Laboratory of Assisted Reproduction and Reproductive Genetics, Shanghai, China. Electronic address: chenzijiang@hotmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundElective single embryo transfer (eSET) has been increasingly advocated, but concerns about the lower pregnancy rate after reducing the number of embryos transferred have encouraged transfer of multiple embryos. Extended embryo culture combined with electively freezing all embryos and undertaking a deferred frozen embryo transfer might increase pregnancy rate after eSET. We aimed to establish whether elective frozen single blastocyst transfer improved singleton livebirth rate compared with fresh single blastocyst transfer.

methodsThis multicentre, non-blinded, randomised controlled trial was undertaken in 21 academic fertility centres in China. 1650 women with regular menstrual cycles undergoing their first cycle of in-vitro fertilisation were enrolled from Aug 1, 2016, to June 3, 2017. Eligible women were randomly assigned to either fresh or frozen single blastocyst transfer. The randomisation sequence was computer generated, with block sizes of two, four, or six, stratified by study site. For those assigned to frozen blastocyst transfer, all blastocysts were cryopreserved and a delayed frozen-thawed single blastocyst transfer was done. The primary outcome was singleton livebirth rate. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, number ChiCTR-IOR-14005405.

findings825 women were assigned to each group and included in analyses. Frozen single blastocyst transfer resulted in higher rates of singleton livebirth than did fresh single blastocyst transfer (416 [50%] vs 329 [40%]; relative risk [RR] 1·26, 95% CI 1·14-1·41, p<0·0001). The risks of moderate or severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (four of 825 [0·5%] in frozen single blastocyst transfer vs nine of 825 [1·1%] in fresh single blastocyst transfer; p=0·16), pregnancy loss (134 of 583 [23·0%] vs 124 of 481 [25·8%]; p=0·29), other obstetric complications, and neonatal morbidity were similar between the two groups. Frozen single blastocyst transfer was associated with a higher risk of pre-eclampsia (16 of 512 [3·1%] vs four of 401 [1·0%]; RR 3·13, 95% CI 1·06-9·30, p=0·029).

interpretationFrozen single blastocyst transfer resulted in a higher singleton livebirth rate than did fresh single blastocyst transfer in ovulatory women with good prognosis. The increased risk of pre-eclampsia after frozen blastocyst transfer warrants further studies.

fundingThe National Key Research and Development Program of China.

Indexed as

CryopreservationAbortion, SpontaneousAdultChinaFemaleHumansIntention to Treat AnalysisLive BirthOvarian Hyperstimulation SyndromePre-EclampsiaPregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsSingle Embryo TransferTreatment OutcomeYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID30827784

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.