ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2020
Cell number considerations for blastocyst transfer in younger patients.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Istanbul consensus update: a revised ESHRE/ALPHA consensus on oocyte and embryo static and dynamic morphological assessment†,‡.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Does cleavage stage morphology increase the discriminatory power of prediction in blastocyst transfer outcome?Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the role of the cell number at day 3 in blastocyst selection.
designObservational, retrospective, single-center clinical study. PATIENT(S): In part 1, 1211 single vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer (SVBT) cycles were identified and reviewed. All the cycles were conventional in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles and the first embryo transfer cycles. Most of patients had a risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and were young. In part 2, 864 IVF-derived blastocysts from 292 infertile couples underwent trophectoderm (TE) biopsy for preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A). INTERVENTION(S): No patient intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The first part was an analysis of the correlation between the cell number at day 3 and live birth rate (LBR) after SVBT, and the second part was an analysis of the correlation between the cell number at day 3 and euploid rate (ER) of blastocysts. RESULT(S): In part 1, after correcting for the effects of other confounders, the cell number at day 3 had no significant effect on the LBR (OR 1.001, 95% CI 0.938-1.068). In part 2, after correcting for the effects of other confounders, the cell number at day 3 had no significant effect on the ER (OR 0.960, 95% CI 0.866-1.063). CONCLUSION(S): When the vitrified-warmed blastocysts obtained by conventional IVF are transferred into young patients, the cell number at day 3 is not a strong predictor of the LBR. In addition, the cell number at day 3 is not a strong predictor of ER of IVF-derived blastocysts too.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.