ArticleTurkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology2022
Comparison of the impact of laser-assisted hatching on fresh cleavage and blastocyst embryo transfer and association with pregnancy outcomes.
Article in Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Assisted hatching (AH) techniques can improve live birth (LB) and clinical pregnancy (CP) rates. Since there are limited data regarding this subject, we investigated the impact of laser-assisted hatching (LAH) on fresh embryo transfer (ET) and association with pregnancy outcomes in unselected patient population. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included the fresh ETs performed at our center between April 2010 and April 2019. Among 3.782 fresh ETs, 3.286 underwent LAH (n=1.583 at cleavage stage and n=1.703 at blastocyst stage) while 496 underwent non-assisted hatching (NAH) (n=213 at cleavage stage and n=283 at blastocyst stage). The ETs were performed at the blastocyst or cleavage stages, and single or double embryos were transferred. LB rate was the primary outcome, while secondary outcomes were the pregnancy test, monozygotic twinning (MZT), and CP rates. Results: The LAH and NAH groups showed similar LB, pregnancy test, CP, and MZT rates at cleavage and blastocyst stages. On the other hand, LAH significantly affected LB rates at the blastocyst stage (20.6% at blastocyst stage vs. 16% at the cleavage stage, p=0.001). Conclusion: In conclusion, LAH does not improve reproductive outcomes of fresh blastocyst-stage and cleavage-stage ETs. However, LAH significant impacts LB rates in the blastocyst stage than the cleavage stage.
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.