Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36567206›Full record

ArticleFertility and sterility2023

Fresh vs. frozen embryo transfer: new approach to minimize the limitations of using national surveillance data for clinical research.

Marissa Steinberg Weiss, Chongliang Luo, Yujia Zhang, Yong Chen, Dmitry M Kissin, Glen A Satten, Kurt T Barnhart

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Freeze all for all- is it justified?Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Marissa Steinberg WeissDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: Marissa.Weiss2@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.
Chongliang LuoDivision of Public Health Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St Louis, Missouri.
Yujia ZhangDivision of Reproductive Health; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Yong ChenDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Dmitry M KissinDivision of Reproductive Health; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Glen A SattenDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia; Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Emory University School of Public Health, Atlanta, Georgia.
Kurt T BarnhartDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Funding

REPRODUCTIVE EPIDEMIOLOGY TRAINING GRANTT32HD007440 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI BARNHART, KURT T · 1996 to 2020
$7.5M
Intramural CDC HHS CC999999NICHD NIH HHS T32 HD007440
6 · The paper itself

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

Embryo TransferFertilization in VitroCryopreservationFemaleHumansPregnancyPregnancy RatePregnancy, TwinRetrospective Studiesfresh embryo transferFrozen embryo transfermodelingnational databasereal-world data

Identifiers

PMID36567206
PMCPMC11017290

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.