Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32759285›Full record

Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2020

Freeze-all versus fresh blastocyst transfer strategy during in vitro fertilisation in women with regular menstrual cycles: multicentre randomised controlled trial.

Sacha Stormlund, Negjyp Sopa, Anne Zedeler, Jeanette Bogstad, Lisbeth Prætorius, Henriette Svarre Nielsen, Margaretha Laczna Kitlinski, Sven O Skouby, Anne Lis Mikkelsen, Anne Lærke Spangmose and 10 more

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 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 57 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
18.1field-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.

NCT02746562 naunknown statusnot on this map

A Multicentre Randomized Controlled Trial of a "Freeze All and Transfer Later" Versus a Conventional "Fresh Embryo Transfer" Strategy for Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) in Women With a Regular Menstrual Cycle

TypeinterventionalSponsorAnja Bisgaard PinborgRan2016 to 2019Enrolled424ConditionsInfertilityArmsFreeze all
NCT05758064 phase2 / phase3unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

How to Rescue Hormonal Replacement Frozen Embryo Transfer Cycle With Low Serum Progesterone? A Randomized Control Trial.

TypeinterventionalSponsorEl Shatby University Hospital for Obstetrics and GynecologyRan2023 to 2023Enrolled120ConditionsHormonal Replacement Frozen Embryo Transfer CycleArmsDuphaston, prolutex
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

57 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 125 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Congenital anomaly and perinatal outcome following blastocyst- vs cleavage-stage embryo transfer: systematic review and network meta-analysis.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Fresh versus frozen embryo transfers in assisted reproduction.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

20 authors at 8 institutions in 3 countries.

Sacha StormlundFertility Clinic, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hvidovre University Hospital, Hvidovre, Kettegaard Allé 30, Copenhagen DK-2650, Denmark sacha.stormlund.01@regionh.dk.ORCID 0000-0003-2352-1661
Negjyp SopaFertility Clinic, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hvidovre University Hospital, Hvidovre, Kettegaard Allé 30, Copenhagen DK-2650, Denmark.
Anne ZedelerFertility Clinic, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hvidovre University Hospital, Hvidovre, Kettegaard Allé 30, Copenhagen DK-2650, Denmark.
Jeanette BogstadFertility Clinic, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Lisbeth PrætoriusFertility Clinic, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hvidovre University Hospital, Hvidovre, Kettegaard Allé 30, Copenhagen DK-2650, Denmark.
Henriette Svarre NielsenFertility Clinic, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Margaretha Laczna KitlinskiDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, Skane University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden.
Sven O SkoubyFertility Clinic, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Herlev University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Anne Lis MikkelsenFertility Clinic, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Holbæk University Hospital, Holbæk, Denmark.
Anne Lærke SpangmoseFertility Clinic, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Janni Vikkelsø JeppesenFertility Clinic, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Ali KhatibiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Reproductive Medicine, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Nina la Cour FreieslebenFertility Clinic, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hvidovre University Hospital, Hvidovre, Kettegaard Allé 30, Copenhagen DK-2650, Denmark.
Søren ZiebeFertility Clinic, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Nikolaos P PolyzosDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, Dexeus University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain.
Christina BerghDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Reproductive Medicine, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Peter HumaidanFertility Clinic, Skive Regional Hospital and Faculty of Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Anders Nyboe AndersenFertility Clinic, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Kristine LøsslFertility Clinic, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Anja PinborgFertility Clinic, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hvidovre University Hospital, Hvidovre, Kettegaard Allé 30, Copenhagen DK-2650, Denmark.
Copenhagen University Hospital · DKHvidovre Hospital · DKSahlgrenska University Hospital · SEAarhus University · DKHerlev Hospital · DKHolbæk Sygehus · DKHospital Universitario Dexeus · ESSkåne University Hospital · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the ongoing pregnancy rate between a freeze-all strategy and a fresh transfer strategy in assisted reproductive technology treatment.

designMulticentre, randomised controlled superiority trial.

settingOutpatient fertility clinics at eight public hospitals in Denmark, Sweden, and Spain.

participants460 women aged 18-39 years with regular menstrual cycles starting their first, second, or third treatment cycle of in vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection.

interventionsWomen were randomised at baseline on cycle day 2 or 3 to one of two treatment groups: the freeze-all group (elective freezing of all embryos) who received gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist triggering and single frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer in a subsequent modified natural cycle; or the fresh transfer group who received human chorionic gonadotropin triggering and single blastocyst transfer in the fresh cycle. Women in the fresh transfer group with more than 18 follicles larger than 11 mm on the day of triggering had elective freezing of all embryos and postponement of transfer as a safety measure.

main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the ongoing pregnancy rate defined as a detectable fetal heart beat after eight weeks of gestation. Secondary outcomes were live birth rate, positive human chorionic gonadotropin rate, time to pregnancy, and pregnancy related, obstetric, and neonatal complications. The primary analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat principle.

resultsOngoing pregnancy rate did not differ significantly between the freeze-all and fresh transfer groups (27.8% (62/223)

conclusionsIn women with regular menstrual cycles, a freeze-all strategy with gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist triggering for final oocyte maturation did not result in higher ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates than a fresh transfer strategy. The findings warrant caution in the indiscriminate application of a freeze-all strategy when no apparent risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome is present.

trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT02746562.

Indexed as

Birth WeightBlastocystCryopreservationAbortion, SpontaneousAdultChorionic GonadotropinFemaleFertilization in VitroHumansLive BirthMenstrual CycleObstetric Labor ComplicationsPregnancyPregnancy RatePremature BirthSingle Embryo TransferChorionic Gonadotropin

Identifiers

PMID32759285
PMCPMC7399608
OpenAlexW3047575149

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.