Trial reportScientific reports2023
Four-dimensional ultrasound guided embryo transfers improve live birth rates when compared to the clinical touch technique: a randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Most aspects of in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) have changed dramatically since introduction, but embryo transfer (ET) technique remains largely unaltered. We aimed to determine whether four-dimensional ultrasound guided embryo transfers (4D UGET) could improve pregnancy rates when compared with clinical touch technique (CTT). This was a single centre open labelled randomised controlled trial in a tertiary fertility centre in the UK. 320 women were randomised on the day of single ET. The primary outcome was clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), secondary outcomes included live birth rate (LBR), biochemical pregnancy rate (BPR), miscarriage, pregnancy of unknown location (PUL) and ectopic pregnancy. 4D-UGET resulted in significantly higher CPR [50% vs 36% p = 0.02, OR 1.78 (1.12-2.84)] and LBR [41% vs 28%, p = 0.02, OR 1.77 (1.09-2.87)] when compared to CTT technique. Miscarriage (p = 0.49), PUL (p = 0.14) and ectopic pregnancy (p = 0.96) were similar between the two groups. LBR, from this trial, are significantly higher than the current UK average (41% vs 24%). 4D UGET allows for superior imaging of the uterine cavity, whilst tailoring the embryo deposition point specifically to the patient. Further RCTs are required to determine if these results can be replicated in other units and whether 4D UGET is superior to 2D UGET.
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.