Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34033111›Full record

ReviewReproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.)2021

When Should We Freeze Embryos? Current Data for Fresh and Frozen Embryo Replacement IVF Cycles.

Michail Kalinderis, Kallirhoe Kalinderi, Garima Srivastava, Roy Homburg

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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.

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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Maternal and neonatal outcomes followingExperimental and therapeutic medicine · 2022
    Article
  8. Review
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Michail KalinderisHomerton Fertility Centre, Homerton University Hospital, London, UK. m.kalinderis@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5358-890X
Kallirhoe Kalinderi3rd Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Garima SrivastavaHomerton Fertility Centre, Homerton University Hospital, London, UK.
Roy HomburgHomerton Fertility Centre, Homerton University Hospital, London, UK.
Homerton University Hospital · GBAristotle University of Thessaloniki · GRQueen Mary University of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent years have seen a dramatic rise in the number of frozen-thawed embryo replacement (FER) cycles. Along with the advances in embryo cryopreservation techniques, the optimization of endometrial receptivity has resulted in outcomes for FER that are similar to fresh embryo transfer. However, the question of whether the Freeze all strategy is for all is nowadays a hot topic. This review addresses this issue and describes current evidence based on randomized controlled trials and observational studies. To date, it is reasonable to perform FER in cases with a clear indication for the benefits of such strategy including impending ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) or preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A); however, this strategy does not fit for all. This review analyses the pros and cons of the freeze all strategy highlighting the need to follow a personalized plan in embryo transfer, avoiding a freeze all methodology for all patients in an unselected manner.

Indexed as

Data AnalysisCryopreservationEmbryonic DevelopmentEmbryo TransferFemaleFertilization in VitroFreezingHumansLive BirthObservational Studies as TopicPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicEndometriumFrozen–thawed embryo replacement cyclesImplantationIVFOHSSPGT-A

Identifiers

PMID34033111
OpenAlexW3165270417

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.