Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36196080›Full record

ReviewHuman reproduction open2022

Evidence and consensus on technical aspects of embryo transfer.

Arianna D'Angelo, Costas Panayotidis, Alessandra Alteri, Saria Mcheik, Zdravka Veleva

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Human reproduction open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. ESHRE recommendations on Good Practice in the IVF laboratory†.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2026
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. The addition of heat shock protein 70 toOpen veterinary journal · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

5 authors.

Arianna D'AngeloWales Fertility Institute, Swansea Bay Health Board, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1505-8489
Costas PanayotidisAttiki Iatriki Advanced Gynaecological Ultrasound and Hysteroscopic Centre Private Practice, Pallini, Athens, Greece.
Alessandra AlteriIRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3092-3546
Saria McheikEuropean Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) Central Office, Strombeek-Bever, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5302-4768
Zdravka VelevaHelsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4896-7697

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUltrasound-guided embryo transfer (US-GET) is a widely performed procedure, but standards for the best practice are not available. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: This document aims to provide an overview of technical aspects of US-GET after considering the published data and including the preparation for the embryo transfer (ET) procedure, the actual procedure, the post-procedure care, associated pathologies, complications and risks, quality assurance and practitioners' performance. SEARCH

methodsA literature search for evidence on key aspects of the ET procedure was carried out from database inception to November 2021. Selected papers (n = 359) relevant to the topic were analysed by the authors. The following key points were considered in the papers: whether ultrasound (US) practice standards were explained, to what extent the ET technique was described and whether complications or incidents and how to prevent such events were reported. In the end, 89 papers could be used to support the recommendations in this document, which focused on transabdominal US-GET. OUTCOMES: The relevant papers found in the literature search were included in the current document and described according to the topic in three main sections: requirements and preparations prior to ET, the ET procedure and training and competence for ET. Recommendations are provided on preparations prior to ET, equipment and materials, ET technique, possible risks and complications, training and competence. Specific aspects of the laboratory procedures are covered, in particular the different loading techniques and their potential impact on the final outcomes. Potential future developments and research priorities regarding the ET technique are also outlined. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: Many topics were not covered in the literature review and some recommendations were based on expert opinions and are not necessarily evidence based. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: ET is the last procedural step in an ART treatment and is a crucial step towards achieving a pregnancy and live birth. The current paper set out to bring together the recent developments considering all aspects of ET, especially emphasizing US quality imaging. There are still many questions needing answers, and these can be subject of future research. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: No funding. A.D.A. has received royalties from CRC Press and personal honorarium from Cook, Ferring and Cooper Surgical. The other co-authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Indexed as

ARTembryo transfergood practiceIVFpregnancyrecommendationsultrasound

Identifiers

PMID36196080
PMCPMC9522404

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.