ArticleReproductive medicine and biology2020
Equivalent clinical outcome after vitrified-thawed blastocyst transfer using semi-automated embryo vitrification system compared with manual vitrification method.
Article in Reproductive medicine and biology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- ESHRE recommendations on Good Practice in the IVF laboratory†.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2026Guideline
- Embryonic and neonatal outcomes following double vitrification/thawing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of oocyte vitrification using a semi-automated or a manual closed system in human siblings: survival and transcriptomic analyses.Journal of ovarian research · 2022Trial
- Vitrification of human blastocysts for couples undergoing assisted reproduction: an updated review.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2024Review
- Automation in ART: Paving the Way for the Future of Infertility Treatment.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2023Review
- Semi-automated versus manual embryo vitrification: inter-operator variability, time-saving, and clinical outcomes.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2021Article
- Equivalent clinical outcome after vitrified-thawed blastocyst transfer using semi-automated embryo vitrification system compared with manual vitrification method.Reproductive medicine and biology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study compared Gavi
methodsThe authors retrospectively compared survival rate, and clinical and perinatal outcomes after vitrified-thawed single blastocyst transfer between Gavi
resultsWith C and G methods, survival rates were 98.6% (208/211) and 99.3% (398/401), total pregnancy rates were 34.3% (72/208) and 33.4% (133/398), and total miscarriage rates were 22.2% (16/72) and 24.8% (33/133), respectively. Among women <35 years old, pregnancy rates were 41.1% (30/73) and 40.5% (62/153) and miscarriage rates were 13.3% (4/30) and 16.1% (10/62) with C and G methods, respectively. Among women ≥35 years old, pregnancy rates were 31.1% (42/135) and 29.0% (71/245) and miscarriage rates were 28.6% (12/42) and 32.4% (23/71) with C and G methods, respectively. C and G methods showed no significant differences in any trials, including gestational age, cesarean section rate, or birthweight (
conclusionsGavi
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.