ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2022
Blastocyst versus cleavage transfers: who benefits?
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2022. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Istanbul consensus update: a revised ESHRE/ALPHA consensus on oocyte and embryo static and dynamic morphological assessment†,‡.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Frozen-thawed double cleavage-stage or frozen-thawed single day 6 blastocyst stage embryo transfer: which is preferable for patients younger than 35 without day 5 blastocyst formation?Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Observational
- Endometrial compaction in patients with chronic endometritis does not predict pregnancy outcomes: a retrospective study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
- When to Transfer Embryos if There Is Only 1 or 2?Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Does conventional morphological evaluation still play a role in predicting blastocyst formation?Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 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
purposeThis retrospective cohort study determined the relative efficacy of blastocyst and cleavage-stage transfers in patients with differing numbers of zygotes.
methodsA total of 1116 women whose embryo transfers were planned independently of patient characteristics were included. Cleavage-stage (D3) and blastocyst-stage (D5) transfer outcomes were analyzed per number of zygotes. The D5 group included transfer cancellations as the intention-to-treat population. The effect of the embryo transfer date on the clinical outcomes (clinical pregnancy and implantation rates) was analyzed using multivariate logistic regression.
resultsAmong the patients, 584 and 532 underwent D3 and D5 embryo transfers, respectively. The clinical pregnancy rates were significantly higher in D5 patients with ≥ 6 zygotes (25.7% vs 48.3%). The multivariate logistic regression analysis for clinical pregnancy did not show significant differences between the blastocyst and cleavage-stage transfers in patients with ≤ 5 zygotes (0.874 [0.635-1.204]). Compared to the cleavage-stage, blastocyst-stage transfers for patients with ≥ 6 zygotes resulted in a three-fold increase in clinical pregnancy rates (3.122 [1.797-5.425]).
conclusionBlastocyst transfers were not inferior to cleavage-stage embryo transfers among patients with few zygotes and were preferable for patients with several zygotes.
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.