Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35191632›Full record

ArticleJBRA assisted reproduction2022

Fresh

Thi Minh Chau Le, Phuc Thinh Ong, Quoc Anh Nguyen, Matheus Roque

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JBRA assisted reproduction, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A randomised control trial on oral dydrogesteroneJournal of medicine and life · 2023
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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.

Thi Minh Chau LeDepartment of Infertility, Tu Du Hospital, Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam, Postal Code 70000.
Phuc Thinh OngCenter for Population Health Sciences, Hanoi University of Public Health, Viet Nam, Postal Code 70000.
Quoc Anh NguyenDepartment of Infertility, Tu Du Hospital, Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam, Postal Code 70000.
Matheus RoqueDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, MATER PRIME, São Paulo, Brazil, Postal Code 04029-200.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine whether elective frozen embryo transfer (eFET), or the 'freeze-all' strategy, associated with better cumulative clinical outcomes compared with fresh embryo transfer (ET).

methodsA total of 7,236 IVF cycles that were followed by a fresh ET or eFET between 2013 and 2017. The patients were subjected to controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol and cleavage-stage ET. Embryo cryopreservation was performed on day 3 by vitrification using an open system. A comparison of cumulative outcomes between the eFET (n=4,065cycles) and the fresh ET groups (n=3,171cycles) were performed. The analysis was performed in four groups of patients based on the number of retrieved oocytes: Group 1: poor responders (1-3 oocytes); Group 2: suboptimal responders (4-9 oocytes); Group 3: normal responders (10-15 oocytes); and Group 4: hyper-responders (>15 oocytes). The primary outcome was the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) per stimulated cycle.

resultsThere were a total of 10,283 ETs (n=5,639 eFET group; n=4,644 fresh group). The freeze-all strategy is associated with improved CLBRs in normal and hyper-responders, but not in suboptimal and poor responders. In Group 1, there were 351 IVF cycles and 387 ETs in total, and the CLBR was 14.3% and 17.7% (p=0.584) for the eFET and fresh group, respectively. In Group 2, there were 2,074 IVF cycles and 2,465 ET in total, and the CLBR was 25.1% and 23.3% (p=0.083) in the eFET and fresh group, respectively. There was a significant difference in the CLBR in Groups 3 and 4, favouring the eFET strategy. In Group 3, 2226 IVF cycles and 3243 ET were performed. The CLBR was 40.5% in the eFET and 36.6% in the fresh group (p<0.001). In Group 4, there were 2547 IVF cycles and 3,188 ET in total, and the CLBR was 52.2% and 47.7% (p<0.001) in the eFET and fresh group, respectively. The number needed to treat to achieve one additional live birth was 25.9 in Group 3 and 22.3 in Group 4.

conclusionsThe implementation of the freeze-all strategy should be individualized. The freeze-all strategy is associated with improved CLBRs in normal and hyper-responders, but not in suboptimal and poor responders.

Indexed as

Birth RateEmbryo TransferCryopreservationFemaleFertilization in VitroHormone AntagonistsHumansLive BirthOvulation InductionPregnancyRetrospective StudiesHormone Antagonistscryopreservationcumulative live birth rateelective frozen-thawed embryo transferfreeze-allfresh embryo transfer

Identifiers

PMID35191632
PMCPMC9355431

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.