ArticleFertility and sterility2023
Fresh vs. frozen embryo transfer: new approach to minimize the limitations of using national surveillance data for clinical research.
Article in Fertility and sterility, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Impact of prolonged embryo storage on reproductive and neonatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2024Pooled it
- Freeze all for all- is it justified?Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2025Article
- Impact of embryo transfer strategies on children health outcomes: a retrospective national cohort study in Taiwan.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
- An additive opinion to the committee opinion of ASRM and SART on the use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A).Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Article
- Embryo transfer impact: a comprehensive national cohort analysis comparing maternal and neonatal outcomes across varied embryo stages in fresh and frozen transfers.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024Article
- The HERA (Hyper-response Risk Assessment) Delphi consensus definition of hyper-responders for in-vitro fertilization.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2023Article
- Conventional outcome reporting per IVF cycle/embryo transfer may systematically underestimate chances of success for women undergoing ART: relevant biases in registries, epidemiological studies, and guidelines.Human reproduction open · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the benefit of frozen vs. fresh elective single embryo transfer using traditional and novel methods of controlling for confounding.
designRetrospective cohort study using data from the National Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance System.
settingNot applicable. PATIENT(S): A total of 44,750 women aged 20-35 years undergoing their first lifetime oocyte retrieval and embryo transfer in 2016-2017, who had ≥4 embryos cryopreserved. INTERVENTION(S): Fresh elective single embryo transfer and frozen elective single embryo transfer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The primary outcome was a singleton live birth. Secondary outcomes included rates of total live birth (singleton plus multiple gestations), twin live birth, clinical intrauterine gestation, total pregnancy loss, biochemical pregnancy, and ectopic pregnancy. Outcomes for infants included gestational age at delivery, birth weight, and being small for gestational age. RESULT(S): The eligibility criteria were met by 6,324 fresh and 2,318 frozen cycles. Patients undergoing fresh and frozen transfer had comparable mean age (30.69 [standard deviation {SD} 0.08] years vs. 31.06 [SD 0.08] years) and body mass index (24.76 [SD 0.20] vs. 25.65 [SD 0.15]); however, women in the frozen cohort created more embryos (8.1 [SD 0.12] vs. 6.8 [SD 0.08]). Singleton live birth rates in the fresh vs. frozen groups were 51.4% vs. 48.8% (risk ratio 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.10). After adjustment with a log-linear regression model and propensity score analysis, the difference in singleton live birth rates remained nonsignificant (adjusted risk ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.97-1.14 and 1.02; 95% CI, 0.96-1.08, respectively). A novel dynamical model confirmed inherent fertility (probability of ever achieving a pregnancy) was balanced between groups (odds ratio, 1.23; 95% CI 0.78-1.95]). The per-cycle probability of singleton live birth was not different between groups (odds ratio 1.11 [95% CI 0.94-1.3]). CONCLUSION(S): In this retrospective cohort study of fresh vs. frozen elective single embryo transfer, there was no statistically significant difference in singleton live birth rate after adjustment using log-linear models and propensity score analysis. The successful application of a novel dynamical model, which incorporates multiple assisted reproductive technology cycles from the same woman as a surrogate for inherent fertility, offers a novel and complementary perspective for assessing interventions using national surveillance data.
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.