Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32840740›Full record

ArticleReproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.)2020

Pregnancy Outcomes of Single/Double Blastocysts and Cleavage Embryo Transfers: a Retrospective Cohort Study of 24,422 Frozen-Thawed Cycles.

Xiaoyu Long, Yuanyuan Wang, Fangrong Wu, Rong Li, Lixue Chen, Weiping Qian, Jie Qiao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. 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
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

7 authors.

Xiaoyu LongCenter for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Third Hospital, No.49 North Huayuan Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100191, China.
Yuanyuan WangCenter for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Third Hospital, No.49 North Huayuan Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100191, China.
Fangrong WuDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Rong LiCenter for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Third Hospital, No.49 North Huayuan Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100191, China.
Lixue ChenCenter for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Third Hospital, No.49 North Huayuan Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100191, China.
Weiping QianDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China. qianweipingsz@126.com.
Jie QiaoCenter for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Third Hospital, No.49 North Huayuan Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100191, China. jie.qiao@263.net.ORCID 0000-0003-2126-1376

Funding

Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission Z191100006619086National Natural Science Foundation of China-Youth Foundation 81401169Research Team of Female Reproductive Health and Fertility Preservation SZSM201612065
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aims to evaluate the effect of blastocyst- and cleavage-stage embryo transfers with different numbers of transferred embryos on pregnancy outcomes in China. This was a retrospective cohort study that collected 24,422 frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) cycles in two affiliated hospitals of Peking University Health Science Center between January 2015 and May 2018. They were divided into four groups: the single cleavage-stage embryo transfer group (C-1) (763 cycles), double cleavage-stage embryo transfer group (C-2) (13,004 cycles), single blastocyst-stage embryo transfer group (B-1) (7913 cycles), and double blastocyst-stage embryo transfer group (B-2) (2046 cycles). Of the four groups, the live birth rate was the lowest in the C-1 group (11.8%) while it was the highest in the B-2 group (33.6%). However, the B-2 group was accompanied with higher risks of miscarriages, maternal complications, twin births, preterm births, and low birth weight. Compared with the C-2 group, the B-1 group had a lower live birth rate (23.0 vs 29.0%; aOR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.72-0.85), but also had a lower risk for twin births (1.9 vs 23.4%; aOR, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.04-0.09) and preterm births (9.6 vs 16.1%; aOR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41-0.65). The probability of live birth in the B-1 group declined from 0.25 at 20-29 years old to 0.08 at > 40 years old, while the probabilities of adverse outcomes went up with maternal age. It can be concluded that single-blastocyst embryo transfer seems to be the best choice for all maternal ages. This group of embryo transfer has significantly reduced adverse neonatal outcomes. Especially, women with younger maternal age in this group appear to prominently benefit from single-blastocyst transfer.

Indexed as

Cleavage Stage, OvumPregnancy OutcomeAdultBlastocystChinaEmbryo TransferFemaleHumansPregnancyRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeYoung AdultDouble-cleavage embryo transferSingle-blastocyst embryo transferTransfer strategy

Identifiers

PMID32840740
PMCPMC7593290

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.