Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36472596›Full record

Trial reportJAMA2022

Effect of Timing by Endometrial Receptivity Testing vs Standard Timing of Frozen Embryo Transfer on Live Birth in Patients Undergoing In Vitro Fertilization: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Nicole Doyle, Samad Jahandideh, Micah J Hill, Eric A Widra, Michael Levy, Kate Devine

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03558399 (A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Live Birth From Single, Euploid Frozen Blastocyst Transfer Using Conventional Timing Versus Timing by Endometrial Receptivity Analysis), which is not on this map. Cited by 49 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
7.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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.

NCT03558399 naunknown statusnot on this map

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Live Birth From Single, Euploid Frozen Blastocyst Transfer Using Conventional Timing Versus Timing by Endometrial Receptivity Analysis

TypeinterventionalSponsorShady Grove Fertility Reproductive Science CenterRan2018 to 2021Enrolled800ConditionsImplantation Failure, Infertility, FemaleArmsFET according to ERA, FET according to standard protocol
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

49 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 92 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. The declining efficiency of IVF in the USA.Human reproduction open · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.
Samad JahandidehShady Grove Fertility Center, Rockville, Maryland.
Micah J HillEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility Fellowship Program, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Eric A WidraShady Grove Fertility Center, Rockville, Maryland.
Michael LevyShady Grove Fertility Center, Rockville, Maryland.
Kate DevineShady Grove Fertility Center, Rockville, Maryland.
Shady Grove Fertility Center · USEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Endometrial receptivity testing is purported to improve live birth following frozen embryo transfer by identifying the optimal embryo transfer time for an individual patient; however, data are conflicting. Objective: To compare live birth from single euploid frozen embryo transfer according to endometrial receptivity testing vs standardized timing. Design, Setting, and Participants: Double-blind, randomized clinical trial at 30 sites within a multicenter private fertility practice in the Eastern US. Enrollment was from May 2018 to September 2020; follow-up concluded in August 2021. Participants underwent in vitro fertilization, preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy, endometrial receptivity testing, and frozen embryo transfer. Those with euploid blastocyst(s) and an informative receptivity result were randomized. Exclusion criteria included recurrent pregnancy loss, recurrent implantation failure, surgically aspirated sperm, donor egg(s), and unmitigated anatomic uterine cavity defects. Interventions: The intervention group (n = 381) underwent receptivity-timed frozen embryo transfer, with adjusted duration of progesterone exposure prior to transfer, if indicated by receptivity testing. The control group (n = 386) underwent transfer at standard timing, regardless of receptivity test results. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was live birth. There were 3 secondary outcomes, including biochemical pregnancy and clinical pregnancy. Results: Among 767 participants who were randomized (mean age, 35 years), 755 (98%) completed the trial. All randomized participants were analyzed. The primary outcome of live birth occurred in 58.5% of transfers (223 of 381) in the intervention group vs 61.9% of transfers (239 of 386) in the control group (difference, -3.4% [95% CI, -10.3% to 3.5%]; rate ratio [RR], 0.95 [95% CI, 0.79 to 1.13]; P = .38). There were no significant differences in the intervention vs the control group for the prespecified secondary outcomes, including biochemical pregnancy rate (77.2% vs 79.5%, respectively; difference, -2.3% [95% CI, -8.2% to 3.5%]; RR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.83 to 1.14]; P = .48) and clinical pregnancy rate (68.8% vs 72.8%, respectively; difference, -4.0% [95% CI, -10.4% to 2.4%]; RR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.80 to 1.12]; P = .25). There were no reported adverse events. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients for whom in vitro fertilization yielded a euploid blastocyst, the use of receptivity testing to guide the timing of frozen embryo transfer, compared with standard timing for transfer, did not significantly improve the rate of live birth. The findings do not support routine use of receptivity testing to guide the timing of embryo transfer during in vitro fertilization. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03558399.

Indexed as

Diagnostic Techniques, Obstetrical and GynecologicalEmbryo TransferEndometriumFertilization in VitroLive BirthAdultDiagnostic Tests, RoutineFemaleHumansMalePregnancySemenTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID36472596
PMCPMC9856480
OpenAlexW4311649077

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.