Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38383460›Full record

ArticleJournal of ovarian research2024

The impact of clinical and laboratory parameters on clinical pregnancy and live birth rates in fresh cycles: a retrospective study of 9608 high-quality cleavage-stage embryos.

Haijing Zhao, Keer Gan, Xiaohui Ji, Lingyan Zheng, Songbang Ou, Mei Mei, Qingxue Zhang, Hui Chen, Ping Yuan, Wenjun Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of ovarian research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. An Updated Understanding of Human Embryonic Fragmentation.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2026
    Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Haijing Zhao *IVF Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, 107 Yanjiang Xi Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510120, China.
Keer Gan *IVF Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, 107 Yanjiang Xi Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510120, China.
Xiaohui Ji *IVF Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, 107 Yanjiang Xi Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510120, China.
Lingyan ZhengIVF Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, 107 Yanjiang Xi Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510120, China.
Songbang OuIVF Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, 107 Yanjiang Xi Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510120, China.
Mei MeiIVF Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, 107 Yanjiang Xi Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510120, China.
Qingxue ZhangIVF Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, 107 Yanjiang Xi Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510120, China.
Hui ChenIVF Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, 107 Yanjiang Xi Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510120, China.
Ping YuanIVF Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, 107 Yanjiang Xi Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510120, China. kekeyp1983@163.com.
Wenjun WangIVF Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, 107 Yanjiang Xi Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510120, China. wangwenjunsys@163.com.

Funding

Chinese Medical Association clinical medical research special fund 18010060735National Natural Science Foundation of China 81801431Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province 2022A1515011152
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence from the Istanbul consensus workshop suggests correlations between morphological parameters and embryo developments. 8-cell embryos are the best blastomere stage on day 3. No good quality evidence exists to support high-quality embryonic selection following blastulation and clinical outcomes. This study aimed to investigate the factors that affect blastocyst formation, blastocyst quality, and clinical outcomes of high-quality cleavage-stage embryos in fresh cycles.

methodsThis study was a retrospective analysis of 9608 high-quality cleavage-stage embryos from 2987 couples between January 2017 to June 2021, namely 1520 embryos categorized as "812" (8-cell, grade 2, mild fragmentation), 2961 as "821" (8-cell, grade 2, mild asymmetry), 896 as "711" (7-cell, grade 1), and 517 as "911" (9-cell, grade 1) compared with 3714 embryos categorized as "811" (8-cell, grade 1). The primary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and live birth rate (LBR). Blastulation rate (BR), available late blastocyst rate (ABR) and high-quality late blastocyst rate (HBR) were secondary outcome measures.

resultsBR, ABR, and HBR had significant differences among the five groups (P < 0.001), while CPR and LBR were also significantly different in cleavage-stage fresh transfer (P < 0.01). The multivariable multilevel logistic regression analysis revealed a significant association between cell number, cell size, blastocyst development and clinical outcomes. For 7 to 9-cell highest-quality embryo, mild fragmentation and more blastomeres were more conducive to blastocyst formation and clinical outcomes. While cleavage-stage embryos developed into blastocysts, the negative impact of their initial morphology on clinical outcomes would be erased.

conclusionsOur study firstly evaluated blastocyst development and clinical outcomes of high-quality cleavage-stage embryos in fresh cycles, with rankings of 811, 812, 911, 821, and 711. We found the initial morphological characteristics of the high-quality cleavage-stage embryos did not adversely impact clinical outcomes, even as they progressed to the blastocyst stage.

Indexed as

Birth RateEmbryo TransferBlastocystEmbryonic DevelopmentFemaleHumansLive BirthPregnancyPregnancy RateRetrospective StudiesBlastocystClinical pregnancy rateHigh-quality embryoLive birth rate

Identifiers

PMID38383460
PMCPMC10882753

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.