Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32153506›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in endocrinology2020

The Future of Cryopreservation in Assisted Reproductive Technologies.

Ernesto Bosch, Michel De Vos, Peter Humaidan

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
16.7field-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

63 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 137 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Is it Permissible to use Human Eggs inAsian bioethics review · 2025
    Article

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

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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Ernesto BoschInstituto Valenciano de Infertilidad, Valencia, Spain.
Michel De VosCentre for Reproductive Medicine, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Peter HumaidanThe Fertility Clinic, Skive Regional Hospital, Skive, Denmark.
Aarhus University · DKGuardia Civil · ESUniversitair Ziekenhuis Brussel · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Societal changes and the increasing desire and opportunity to preserve fertility have increased the demand for effective assisted reproductive technologies (ART) and have increased the range of scenarios in which ART is now used. In recent years, the "freeze-all" strategy of cryopreserving all oocytes or good quality embryos produced in an IVF cycle to transfer later-at a time that is more appropriate for reasons of medical need, efficacy, or desirability-has emerged as an accepted and valuable alternative to fresh embryo transfer. Indeed, improvements in cryopreservation techniques (vitrification) and the development of more efficient ovarian stimulation protocols have facilitated a dramatic increase in the practice of elective frozen embryo transfer (eFET). Alongside these advances, debate continues about whether eFET should be a standard treatment option available to the whole IVF population or if it is important to identify patient subgroups who are most likely to benefit from such an approach. Achieving successful outcomes in ART, whether by fresh or frozen embryo transfer, is influenced by a wide range of factors. As well as the efficiency of IVF and embryo transfer protocols and techniques, factors affecting implantation include maternal aging, sperm quality, the vaginal and endometrial microbiome, and peri-implantation levels of serum progesterone. The safety of eFET, both during ART cycles and on longer-term obstetric and neonatal outcomes, is also an important consideration. In this review, we explore the benefits and risks of freeze-all strategies in different scenarios. We review available evidence on the outcomes achieved with elective cryopreservation strategies and practices and how these compare with more traditional IVF cycles with fresh embryo transfers, both in the general IVF population and in subgroups of special interest. In addition, we consider how to optimize and individualize "freeze-all" procedures to achieve successful reproductive outcomes.

Indexed as

Birth RateCryopreservationEmbryo TransferFemaleHumansOvulation InductionPregnancyPregnancy OutcomePregnancy RateReproductive Techniques, Assistedelective frozen embryo transfer (eFET)embryo cryopreservationfreeze-allhigh respondersoocyte cryopreservationovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS)polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS)preimplantation genetic testing (PGT)

Identifiers

PMID32153506
PMCPMC7044122
OpenAlexW3006738753

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.