ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2021
Semi-automated versus manual embryo vitrification: inter-operator variability, time-saving, and clinical outcomes.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- ESHRE recommendations on Good Practice in the IVF laboratory†.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2026Guideline
- Comparison of oocyte vitrification using a semi-automated or a manual closed system in human siblings: survival and transcriptomic analyses.Journal of ovarian research · 2022Trial
- Automation in the IVF laboratory in 2026: four technology domains, an asymmetric evidence base, and the case for parallel development with clinician-side automation.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Review
- Microfluidics for in vitro fertilization: from science to clinical validation.Human reproduction update · 2026Review
- Ultra-Fast Warming Procedure of Vitrified Blastocysts Results in Maintained Embryology and Clinical Outcomes.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2025Article
- The international transportation of frozen embryos does not affect IVF outcomes.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDoes semi-automated vitrification have lower inter-operator variability and better clinical outcomes than manual vitrification?
methodsRetrospective analyses of 282 patients whose embryos had been cryopreserved, manually with Irvine®-CBS® (MV) or semi-automatically vitrified with the GAVI® method (AV) (from November 2017 to September 2020). Both techniques were performed during the same period by 5 operators. Inter-operator variability was statistically analyzed between operators who performed the vitrification and those who performed the warming process to compare the intact survival rate (% embryos with 100% intact blastomeres) and the positive survival rate (at least 50% intact blastomeres). Additionally, the complete vitrification time was assessed for the 2 techniques according to the number of vitrified embryos.
resultsManual vitrification involved warming 338 embryos in 266 cycles for 181 couples compared to 212 embryos in 162 AV cycles for 101 patients. The positive survival rate was higher (p < 0.05) after MV (96%; 323/338) than after AV (90%; 191/212). The intact survival rate (86 vs 84%) and the clinical pregnancy rate (27 vs 22%) were not significantly different between MV and AV. Regarding the inter-operator variability, no significant difference in positive and intact survival rate was evident between the 5 technicians, neither by vitrification nor by warming steps with MV and AV. Concerning time-saving, the MV technique proved to be quicker than AV (minus 11 ± 9 min).
conclusionsManual vitrification exhibited favorable total survival rates and was more time efficient, while both MV and AV cooling and warming treatments showed little operator variability.
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.