ArticleReproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.)2023
Comparative Assessment of Survival and Clinical Outcome Between Two Commercial Vitrification Kits with Different Warming Protocols After Blastocyst Culture: Potential Perspectives Toward Simplified Warming Procedures.
Article in Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A one-step short rehydration protocol for warming is associated with live birth outcomes in frozen blastocyst transfers: a retrospective cohort study.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2026Article
- Oocyte and Embryo Vitrification.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026Article
- The impact of completely shrunken blastocysts on clinical outcomes in vitrified-warmed single blastocyst transfer cycles.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comparative study onFrontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigates whether there is an effect on laboratory results and clinical outcome using commercial kits with similar vitrification but different warming procedures for blastocysts vitrified on day 5 or day 6. A single-center retrospective cohort study was performed between 2011 and 2020. A change from a stage-specific kit (Kit 1) to a universal kit (Kit 2) was undertaken in 2017. A total of 1845 untested blastocysts were warmed for single vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfers (SVBT). Eight hundred and twenty-five blastocysts were vitrified with Kit 1 and 1020 with Kit 2. Blastocyst survival was not different (96.1% versus 97.3%). Seven hundred seventy-seven SVBT were performed from Kit 1 and 981 from Kit 2. Overall clinical pregnancy and live birth rates were not different (35.4% versus 34.1% and 30.9% versus 30.5% for Kit 1 and 2, respectively). Subgroup analysis for live birth rates in relation to the day of blastocyst vitrification showed no differences (36.1% and 36.1% for day 5 and 25.4% and 23.5% for day 6 blastocysts, respectively). For both kits, the mean gestational age was not different (38.8 ± 2.5 weeks versus 38.8 ± 2.0 weeks) with a singleton birth weight of 3413 ± 571 g and 3410 ± 528 g for Kit 1 and Kit 2, respectively. Differences in warming procedures do not affect laboratory performance or clinical outcome after blastocyst vitrification. The plasticity of a human blastocyst may allow for further investigation on simplification of blastocyst warming procedures.
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.