ArticleTurkish journal of urology2019
Higher efficiency of frozen embryo transfer in male infertility cases in in vitro fertilization.
Article in Turkish journal of urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of the present study was to analyze the success rates of frozen and fresh embryo transfer methods in different patient groups. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe study included 453 patients who underwent in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. The patients were further divided into three groups as male factor, tubal/ovarian/uterine factor, and other factors. IVF treatment was performed through either fresh or frozen embryo transfer (FET). Of the 453 patients, 298 had fresh embryo transfer, and 155 received FET. The implantation and live-birth rates of FET were compared with fresh transfer approach, focusing on the effects of male infertility.
resultsThere was a significant difference between the pregnancy ratios of patients who underwent fresh embryo transfer versus patients who underwent FET. In patients who were receiving IVF treatment due to male factors, the pregnancy rate was 49.32% in the fresh embryo transfer group, whereas it was 69.70% in the FET group, revealing a significant difference between the two groups (p=0.0321). Although the live-birth ratios were higher in the FET group both among all patients who underwent IVF due to male factor, the differences between the groups were not statistically significant.
conclusionWe observed higher pregnancy rates in FET patients compared with fresh embryo transfer in the study group. The differences in pregnancy rates and live-birth rates were especially evident in IVF cases where male factor was the reason for the treatment.
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.