Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35710597›Full record

ArticleFertility and sterility2022

Live birth after transfer of a single euploid vitrified-warmed blastocyst according to standard timing vs. timing as recommended by endometrial receptivity analysis.

Nicole Doyle, Joshua C Combs, Samad Jahandideh, Victoria Wilkinson, Kate Devine, Jeanne E O'Brien

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Fertility and sterility, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nicole DoyleShady Grove Fertility Center, Rockville, Maryland. Electronic address: nicole.pfaeffle.doyle@gmail.com.
Joshua C CombsEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility Fellowship Program, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Samad JahandidehShady Grove Fertility Center, Rockville, Maryland.
Victoria WilkinsonShady Grove Fertility Center, Rockville, Maryland.
Kate DevineShady Grove Fertility Center, Rockville, Maryland.
Jeanne E O'BrienShady Grove Fertility Center, Rockville, Maryland.
Shady Grove Fertility Center · USNational Institutes of Health · US

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS Z99 HD999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine whether endometrial receptivity analysis (ERA) improves live births in patients with and without a history of unsuccessful frozen embryo transfers (FETs).

designRetrospective cohort study.

settingLarge reproductive center. PATIENT(S): Patients with and without ERA before euploid single FET were included in the analysis. INTERVENTION(S): Subjects in the exposed group underwent ERA and ERA-timed FETs. Subjects in the unexposed group followed a standard protocol FET without ERA. Outcomes were compared between nonreceptive and receptive subjects undergoing an ERA-timed FET and between ERA-timed vs. standard protocol FETs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The primary outcome was a live birth; secondary outcomes were biochemical and clinical pregnancy rates. RESULT(S): A total of 307 ERA-timed FETs and 2,284 standard protocol FETs were analyzed. One hundred twenty-five patients (40.7%) were ERA receptive, and 182 (59.3%) were ERA nonreceptive. After adjusting for the number of the previously failed FETs, there was no difference in the proportion of receptive and nonreceptive ERA results. There were no statistically significant differences in live births in patients with ERA-receptive vs. ERA-nonreceptive results (48.8% and 41.7%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio 1.17; 95% CI, 0.97-1.40). There were no statistically significant differences in live births in patients with or without ERA testing results before FET (44.6% and 51.3%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio 0.87; 95% CI, 0.73-1.04). CONCLUSION(S): Patients with an increasing number of previous failed euploid FET cycles are not at an increased risk of a displaced window of implantation. Patients categorized as receptive vs. nonreceptive and those without ERA testing results have comparable FET success rates.

Indexed as

Embryo TransferLive BirthBlastocystCryopreservationFemaleHumansPregnancyPregnancy RateRetrospective StudiesEndometrial receptivity analysisERAPGT-Awindow of implantation

Identifiers

PMID35710597
PMCPMC9329263
OpenAlexW4282821461

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.