Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32100020›Full record

SynthesisHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2020

The human factor: does the operator performing the embryo transfer significantly impact the cycle outcome?

F Cirillo, P Patrizio, M Baccini, E Morenghi, C Ronchetti, L Cafaro, E Zannoni, A Baggiani, P E Levi-Setti

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · hybridAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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.

NCT03561129 completednot on this map

Does the Operator Performing the Embryo Transfer Significantly Influence the Cycle Outcome: A Retrospective Evaluation of Humanitas Fertility Center's Experience

TypeobservationalSponsorIstituto Clinico HumanitasRan1997 to 2017Enrolled200,000ConditionsSterilityArmsEmbryo transfer
NCT05701072 completednot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Development of a Screening Tool for Difficult Embryo Transfers

TypeobservationalSponsorART Fertility Clinics LLCRan2023 to 2023Enrolled200ConditionsInfertilityArmsOocyte Pick Up, Embryo Transfer
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. All Models Are Wrong, but Some Are Useful.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2020
    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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

F CirilloDepartment of Gynecology, Division of Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine, Fertility Center, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCCS, via Manzoni 56, Rozzano, 20089 Milan, Italy.
P PatrizioDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CO 06520, USA.
M BacciniDepartment of Statistics, Computer Science, Applications, University of Florence, 50134 Florence, Italic.
E MorenghiBiostatistics Unit, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCCS, via Manzoni 56, Rozzano, 20089 Milan, Italy.
C RonchettiDepartment of Gynecology, Division of Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine, Fertility Center, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCCS, via Manzoni 56, Rozzano, 20089 Milan, Italy.
L CafaroDepartment of Gynecology, Division of Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine, Fertility Center, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCCS, via Manzoni 56, Rozzano, 20089 Milan, Italy.
E ZannoniDepartment of Gynecology, Division of Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine, Fertility Center, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCCS, via Manzoni 56, Rozzano, 20089 Milan, Italy.
A BaggianiDepartment of Gynecology, Division of Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine, Fertility Center, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCCS, via Manzoni 56, Rozzano, 20089 Milan, Italy.
P E Levi-SettiDepartment of Gynecology, Division of Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine, Fertility Center, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCCS, via Manzoni 56, Rozzano, 20089 Milan, Italy.
Humanitas University · ITIstituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · ITUniversity of Florence · ITYale University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

study questionIs Ongoing Pregnancy Rate (OPR) operator-dependent, and can experience improve embryo transfer efficiency? SUMMARY ANSWER: OPR is influenced by the operators who perform the embryo transfer (ET), and experience does not assure proficiency for everyone. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: ET remains the critical step in assisted reproduction. Although many other factors such as embryo quality and uterine receptivity impact embryo implantation, the proper ET technique is clearly an operator-dependent variable and as such it should be objectively standardized. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Retrospective comparative analysis including all fresh ETs performed between January 1996 and December 2016 at the Humanitas Fertility Center after IVF-ICSI cycles. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,

methodsIVF/ICSI fresh ETs performed by 32 operators, 19 824 cycles in all, were analyzed. All transfers consisting of freehand insertion of a preloaded soft catheter into the uterine cavity under transabdominal ultrasound guidance were considered. Two different statistical analyses were performed. First, a logistic regression model with a random intercept for the operator was used to estimate the heterogeneity of the rate of success among operators, accounting for woman age, FSH, number of oocytes retrieved, fertilization rate, year of the procedure, number and stage of transferred embryos and operator's experience. Second, the relationship between experience and pregnancy rate was estimated separately for each operator by logistic regression, and operator-specific results were combined and compared in a random-effects meta-analysis. In both analyses, the operator's experience at time t was measured in terms of number of embryo transfers performed before t. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The heterogeneity among operators was highly significant (P value <0.001) and explained 44.5% of the total variability. The odds ratio of success of the worst operator in respect to the mean was equal to 0.84. For the best operator, the odds ratio of success was equal to 1.13 in respect to the mean. Based on the meta-analysis of the relationship between operator's experience and success rate, it resulted that, on average, the operators' performance did not improve with additional transfers. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: At our center, operators become independent for ET's after performing between 30 and 50 transfers under supervision. It is also possible that other relevant factors, such as embryologists on duty for the ET, have not been included in the present analysis and this may represent a potential bias. Among these, it should be mentioned that the embryologists on duty for the ET were not taken into consideration. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE

findingsContinued performance analysis and the use of a digital simulator could help operators to test their expertise over time and either correct poor performance or avoid doing transfers. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): None. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03561129.

Indexed as

Embryo TransferFertilization in VitroEmbryo ImplantationFemaleHumansPregnancyPregnancy RateRetrospective Studiesembryo transferexperienceIVF success ratelearning curveoperator

Identifiers

PMID32100020
PMCPMC7048715
OpenAlexW3007733752

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.