ArticleReproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.)2022
Accumulation of Cleavage-Stage Embryos by Vitrification may Compromise Embryonic Developmental Potential in Preimplantation Genetic Testing.
Article in Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Impact of repeated cryopreservation on embryo development and chromosomal ploidy.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It was suggested that the embryo pooling was an alternative for patients with insufficient number of embryos for preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) in a single ovarian stimulation cycle. However, limited study noticed whether it is an efficient strategy to pool cleavage-stage embryos by vitrification. This study included 71 cycles with vitrified-warmed and fresh embryos simultaneously for PGT between May 2016 and May 2021. The embryos from the same patients were split into two groups based on the origin: warming group and fresh group. Embryo development, sequencing results, clinical and neonatal outcomes were compared. The results showed that the rate of high-quality embryos in the warming group was significantly higher than that in the fresh group (64.53% versus 52.61%, P = 0.011); however, the available blastocyst rate in this group was significantly lower than that in the fresh group (47.29% versus 57.83%, P = 0.026). There were 96 and 144 blastocysts that underwent trophectoderm (TE) biopsy in warming and fresh groups, respectively. The high-quality blastocyst rate was significantly lower in the warming group compared to the fresh group (57.29% versus 70.14%, P = 0.041). The rates of genetic transferable blastocyst were comparable between the two groups (P = 0.956). There were no statistical differences in terms of embryo implantation, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage rates, and neonatal outcomes between the two groups. In conclusion, this study demonstrated that the cleavage-stage embryo pooling strategy might be unfavorable for the maintenance of embryonic development potential. If not necessary, it is not recommended to pool cleavage-stage embryos for PGT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35212931What 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.