ArticleF&S reports2021
Is there still a role for a cleavage-stage embryo transfer?
Article in F&S reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Extended embryo culture and cumulative live birth in patients with limited embryos.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Article
- Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage transfers in patients with a single zygote: an emulated target trial.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Impact of rapidly cleaving embryos on blastocyst formation and single-blastocyst transfer outcomes.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- How to balance the live birth rate and the multiple pregnancy rate by selecting the cleavage-stage embryo number and quality for POSEIDON Group 1 and Group 2? A retrospective study.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Article
- Determining Factors Influencing The Successful Embryo Transfer and Pregnancy during The Frozen Cycle ofInternational journal of fertility & sterility · 2024Article
- Is the Human Chorionic Gonadotropin Level on Day 10 After Cleaved Embryo Transfer a Predictor of Perinatal Outcome?: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2024Article
- Live Birth after Cleavage-Stage versus Blastocyst-Stage Embryo Transfer in Assisted Reproductive Technology: A Randomised Controlled Study.International journal of fertility & sterility · 2024Article
- Trade-off between double cleavage-stage embryos transfer and single blastocyst-stage embryo transfer in patients with few good quality embryos in antagonist cycles: a retrospective study using a propensity score matching analysis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Observational
- Nucleation status of Day 2 pre-implantation embryos, acquired by time-lapse imaging during IVF, is associated with live birth.PloS one · 2022Article
- Cleavage-stage embryo transfer: we'll never let it go.F&S reports · 2021Article
- Determining Factors Affecting the Successful Outcome of Fresh Embryo Transfer During In Vitro Fertilization: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of reproduction & infertilityArticle
- Optimal Embryo Selection: The Irreplaceable Role of the Embryologist in an Age of Advancing Technology.Journal of human reproductive sciencesArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine whether pregnancy outcomes are poor or futile when an intended day 5 transfer is converted to a cleavage-stage transfer because of poor embryo development or a lower number of embryos.
designRetrospective cohort study.
settingAcademic medical center. PATIENTS: Women with a limited number of embryos, defined as ≤6 two pronuclear embryos, after in vitro fertilization.
interventionsPatients who had a cleavage-stage transfer were age matched with patients who had a day 5 transfer.
main outcome measuresLive birth rate.
resultsA total of 146 women were included in the study with 73 women in each group. Cleavage-stage transfer was associated with significantly lower implantation and clinical pregnancy rates compared with those of day 5 transfer. Although the live birth rate of the cleavage-stage transfer group was lower than that of the day 5 transfer group (25% vs. 40%, respectively), the cleavage-stage transfer still resulted in a live birth rate of 25%. A subanalysis comparing women who did and did not achieve live birth after cleavage-stage transfer demonstrated a live birth rate of 27% when at least one grade A embryo was transferred vs. 17% when a lesser quality embryo (grade B or C) was transferred.
conclusionsAs expected, the live birth rate after cleavage-stage transfer was lower than that after day 5 transfer. However, the live birth rate of cleavage-stage transfer still fell into acceptable practice, >5%, for patients who were otherwise at very high risk of having no day 5 embryo transfer. Extended culture may not be necessary for all patients.
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.