ArticleClinical and experimental reproductive medicine2021
Comparison of pregnancy outcomes using a time-lapse monitoring system for embryo incubation versus a conventional incubator in in vitro fertilization: An age-stratification analysis.
Article in Clinical and experimental reproductive medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Elevated contractility drives implantation failure in mouse embryos from aged females.Nature cell biology · 2026Article
- Time-Lapse Imaging in IVF: Bridging the Gap Between Promises and Clinical Realities.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- A mechanical origin for implantation defects in embryos from aged females.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Advanced strategies for single embryo selection in assisted human reproduction: A review of clinical practice and research methods.Clinical and experimental reproductive medicine · 2025Article
- Non-invasive evaluation of embryo quality for the selection of transferable embryos in human in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer.Clinical and experimental reproductive medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the pregnancy outcomes of in vitro fertilization with embryo transfer between embryos cultured in a time-lapse monitoring system (TLS) and those cultured in a conventional incubator (CI).
methodsThe medical records of 250 fertilized embryos from 141 patients undergoing infertility treatment with assisted reproductive technology at a tertiary hospital from June 2018 to May 2020 were reviewed. The study population was divided into TLS and CI groups at a 1 to 1 ratio (125 embryos per group). The primary outcome was the live birth rate.
resultsThe TLS group had a significantly higher clinical pregnancy rate (46.4% vs. 27.2%, p=0.002), implantation rate (27.1% vs. 12.0%, p=0.004), and live birth rate (32.0% vs. 18.4%, p=0.013) than the CI group. Furthermore, subgroup analyses of the clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate in the different age groups favored the TLS group. However, this difference only reached statistical significance in the live birth rate in women aged over 40 years and the clinical pregnancy rate in women aged 35-40 years (p=0.048 and p=0.031, respectively). The miscarriage rate, cleavage rate, and blastocyst rate were comparable.
conclusionTLS application improved the live birth rate, implantation rate, and clinical pregnancy rate, particularly in the advanced age group in this study, while the other reproductive outcomes were comparable. Large randomized controlled trials are needed to further explore the ramifications of these findings, especially in different age groups.
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.