Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38605294›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2024

Competent blastocyst and receptivity endometrium improved clinical pregnancy in fresh embryo transfer cycles: a retrospective cohort study.

Longmei Wang, Pingping Qiu, Lizhi Jiang, Ping Li, Yufei Jiang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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. Article
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

5 authors.

Longmei WangXiamen Key Laboratory of Reproduction and Genetics, Department of Reproductive Medicine, Women and Children's Hospital, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, 361003, Fujian, China.
Pingping QiuXiamen Key Laboratory of Reproduction and Genetics, Department of Reproductive Medicine, Women and Children's Hospital, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, 361003, Fujian, China.
Lizhi JiangXiamen Key Laboratory of Reproduction and Genetics, Department of Reproductive Medicine, Women and Children's Hospital, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, 361003, Fujian, China.
Ping LiXiamen Key Laboratory of Reproduction and Genetics, Department of Reproductive Medicine, Women and Children's Hospital, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, 361003, Fujian, China. saarc2001@sina.com.
Yufei JiangXiamen Key Laboratory of Reproduction and Genetics, Department of Reproductive Medicine, Women and Children's Hospital, School of Medicine, Xiamen University, Xiamen, 361003, Fujian, China. ji.angyufei@163.com.

Funding

Fujian provincial health technology project 2020QNB068Medical and Health Research Guidance Plan of Xiamen 3502Z20209195Medical Science Research Foundation of Bethune QL002DSXiamen Natural Science Foundation Project 3502Z202373118
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEmbryo quality is usually regarded as a key predictor of successful implantation and clinical pregnancy potential. The identification of embryos that have the capacity to implant and result in a healthy pregnancy is a crucial part of in vitro fertilization (IVF). Usually, morphologically high-quality embryos are chosen for embryo transfer in IVF treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the association between the available blastocyst formation rate and the clinical pregnancy outcome following the first fresh embryo transfer cycle and provide systematic individual treatment to adjust endometrial receptivity for the next transfer cycle.

methodsThis retrospective, single-center study included 512 fresh embryo transfers conducted between 11/2019 and 08/2021, which consisted of 385 cleavage-stage (Day 3) and 127 blastocyst-stage (Day 5) embryo transfers. The two groups were divided into a clinical pregnancy group and a nonclinical pregnancy group for comparison. The association between the available blastocyst formation rate and the clinical pregnancy rate in the Day 3 and Day 5 transfer groups were considered.

resultsIn the Day 3 group, there were 275 clinical pregnancies, and the clinical pregnancy rate was 71.43%. Although the two pronuclei (2PN) oocyte rate and available embryo rate at Day 3 were significantly higher in the clinical pregnancy group than the nonclinical pregnancy group (P < 0.05), the blastocyst formation rate and the available blastocyst formation rate were not significantly different between the clinical pregnancy group and the nonclinical pregnancy group (P > 0.05). In the Day 5 group, there were 81 clinical pregnancies, and the clinical pregnancy rate was 63.78%. No baseline characteristics showed any obvious differences between the clinical pregnancy group and nonclinical pregnancy group (P > 0.05). The blastocyst formation rate in the nonclinical pregnancy group was higher than that in the clinical pregnancy group, but the difference was not statistically significant (81.06% vs. 77.03%, P = 0.083). Interestingly, the available blastocyst formation rate and the Day 5 available blastocyst formation rate were significantly higher in the nonclinical pregnancy group than the clinical pregnancy group (66.19% vs. 60.79%, P = 0.014; 54.58% vs. 46.98%, P = 0.007).

conclusionsIn fresh cycles, the available blastocyst formation rate was not associated with the clinical pregnancy outcome for Day 3 embryo transfers, and the available blastocyst formation rate was not positively correlated with the clinical pregnancy outcome for Day 5 embryo transfers.

Indexed as

Embryo TransferFertilization in VitroBlastocystEndometriumFemaleHumansPregnancyPregnancy OutcomePregnancy RateRetrospective StudiesAvailable blastocyst formation rateClinical pregnancyDay 3 or day 5Fresh embryo transferReceptivity endometrium

Identifiers

PMID38605294
PMCPMC11007979

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.