ArticleRevista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia2022
Comparison of the Effects of GMCSF-Containing and Traditional Culture Media on Embryo Development and Pregnancy Success Rates.
Article in Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The role of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor in female assisted reproductive technology treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Pooled it
- Functions of ectodysplasin A2 receptor (EDA2R) in inducing capacitation of sperm in mice.In vitro cellular & developmental biology. Animal · 2025Article
- Culture conditions in the IVF laboratory: state of the ART and possible new directions.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe use of granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF)-containing medium, which is a commercial medium that is used for cultivation of embryos in in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments, has been suggested to increase the efficiency of this procedure in patients with previous multiple unsuccessful attempts. In this retrospective study, we analyzed GM-CSF-containing embryo culture media compared with traditional culture media in terms of development of embryos, pregnancy, and ongoing pregnancy success and live birth rates.
methodsThis is a prospective case control study conducted in a single center. A total of 131 unexplained infertility patients were included in the study. A cohort of 69 patients whose embryos were cultured in GM-CSF-containing medium and a control group of 62 age-matched patients whose embryos were cultured in conventional Sage One Step medium were included in the study. The major study outcomes were achievement of pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy rate at 12 weeks of gestation.
resultsThe pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy rates of the patients whose embryos were cultured in GM-CSF-containing medium were 39.13% and 36.23%, respectively. These were higher than the rates of the control group, which were 30.65% and 29.03%, respectively, although this difference was not statistically significant. In addition, the 5
conclusionThe main findings of our study were that there was no difference between the GM-CSF-enhanced medium and the control group in terms of our major study outcomes. However, blastomere inequality rate and embryo fragmentation rates were lower in the GM-CSF group.
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.