ArticleJBRA assisted reproduction2024
Double vitrification of embryos adversely affects clinical outcomes.
Article in JBRA assisted reproduction, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Does double cryopreservation as well as double biopsy affect embryo viability and clinical outcomes? Evidence from a systematic review of the literature.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Pooled it
- Embryonic and neonatal outcomes following double vitrification/thawing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Pooled it
- Repeated cryopreservation is associated with poor pregnancy outcomes after frozen-thawed embryo transfer in women aged < 35 years: a propensity-score matched cohort study.European journal of medical research · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the impact of double embryo vitrification on clinical outcomes.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included data from January 2013 to March 2021. The study group included women aged 33.3±5.7 years with double-vitrified embryos (n=381), while the control group included women aged 32.1±6.7 years with embryos vitrified once (n=780), all transferred at the blastocyst stage. The primary endpoint was live birth rate (LBR), and secondary endpoints included percent positive βHCG test, clinical/ongoing pregnancy rates, miscarriage/biochemical pregnancy rates and birthweight.
resultsLBR was significantly lower in double-vitrified embryos (30.2%) than in embryos vitrified once (45.6%, p<.05). Similarly, double-vitrified embryos were associated with significantly lower positive βHCG tests (46% vs. 63.3%, p<.05) and clinical (34.9% vs. 52.2%, p<.05) and ongoing pregnancy (31.3% vs. 47.3%, p<.05) rates compared to embryos vitrified once. However, biochemical pregnancy (double vitrified: 24.1% vs. vitrified once: 17.9%, p>.05) and miscarriage rates (double vitrified: 10.2% vs. vitrified once: 9.4%, p>.05), as well as mean birthweight (double-vitrified embryos: 2950g vs. embryos vitrified once: 2837g, p>.05) did not differ significantly between two groups. On a secondary comparison, amongst double-vitrified embryos, the subgroup that was cultured for more than 24 hours between warming and second vitrification achieved significantly higher positive βHCG tests (49%) and clinical pregnancy (38%) rates, compared to embryos re-vitrified on the same day of warming (31.8% and 20.5%, respectively, p<.05). Nevertheless, LBR did not differ significantly amongst these study-group embryos (embryos that remained in culture for more than 24 hours: 32.2% vs. embryos that were re-vitrified on warming day: 20.5%, p>.05).
conclusionsDouble vitrification of embryos adversely affects clinical outcomes. However, it represents a valuable option concerning embryo wastage, with acceptable success rates.
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.