SynthesisHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2020
The human factor: does the operator performing the embryo transfer significantly impact the cycle outcome?
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.
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.
Does the Operator Performing the Embryo Transfer Significantly Influence the Cycle Outcome: A Retrospective Evaluation of Humanitas Fertility Center's Experience
Development of a Screening Tool for Difficult Embryo Transfers
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact of difficult embryo transfer on the success of IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2023Pooled it
- Interventions to optimize embryo transfer in women undergoing assisted conception: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analyses.Human reproduction update · 2022Pooled it
- Clinician-related variability as an independent determinant of in vitro fertilization success: A retrospective cohort study of intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles.International journal of reproductive biomedicine · 2026Article
- A standardized training allows achieving similar clinical pregnancy rates per top-quality euploid blastocyst transfer across operators.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Article
- The use of an embryo transfer simulator to compare transfer techniques and pregnancy outcomes among physicians.F&S reports · 2024Article
- Steps forward in embryo transfer technique: a retrospective study comparing direct versus afterload catheters at different time frames.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2023Article
- Quality assurance (QA) for monitoring the performance of assisted reproductive technology (ART) staff using artificial intelligence (AI).Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2023Article
- Effect of retained embryos on pregnancy outcomes of in vitro fertilization: a matched retrospective cohort study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Article
- Factors Affecting the Outcomes of First in vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer: A Retrospective Investigation.International journal of women's health · 2023Article
- Ectopic pregnancy risk factors in infertile patients: a 10-year single center experience.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Is There a Doctors' Effect on Patients' Physical Health, Beyond the Intervention and All Known Factors? A Systematic Review.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2022Review
- The Doctors' Effect on Patients' Physical Health Outcomes Beyond the Intervention: A Methodological Review.Clinical epidemiology · 2022Article
- Deep learning early warning system for embryo culture conditions and embryologist performance in the ART laboratory.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2021Article
- Safety of Ovaleap® (Follitropin Alfa) in Infertile Women Undergoing Superovulation for Assisted Reproductive Technologies: A Multinational Comparative, Prospective Cohort Study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2021Article
- All Models Are Wrong, but Some Are Useful.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.