SynthesisBMC pregnancy and childbirth2024
Two laser-assisted hatching methods of embryos in ART: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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 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.
- Outcomes of Embryo Transfer Following Laser-assisted Hatching in Patients with Recurrent Implantation Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2026Review
- Association between laser-assisted hatching and subsequent blastocyst development in fresh day 3 cleavage-stage embryos: a retrospective cohort study using propensity score matching, generalized estimating equations, and time-sensitivity analyses.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- The effect of laser-assisted incubation on bovineFrontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLaser-assisted hatching (LAH) stands as the predominant technique for removing the zona pellucida (ZP) in embryos, primarily consisting of two methods: drilling laser-assisted hatching (D-LAH) and thinning laser-assisted hatching (T-LAH). Presently, both methods have limitations, and their comparative efficacy for embryo implantation and clinical pregnancy remains uncertain.
aimEvaluate the impact of D-LAH and T-LAH on clinical pregnancy rates within assisted reproductive technology (ART).
methodsWe systematically searched electronic databases including PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library until July 20, 2022. This study encompassed observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A 95% confidence interval (CI) was utilized for assessing the risk ratio (RR) of pregnancy outcomes. The level of heterogeneity was measured using I
resultsThe meta-analysis scrutinized 9 studies involving 2405 clinical pregnancies from D-LAH and 2239 from T-LAH. Findings suggested no considerable variation in the clinical pregnancy rates between the two techniques (RR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.79-1.10, I
conclusionBoth the primary findings and subgroup analyses showed no marked variance in clinical pregnancy rates between D-LAH and T-LAH. Therefore, patients with varying conditions should select their preferred LAH technique after assessing their individual situation. However, due to the restricted number of studies involved, accurately gauging the influence of these laser techniques on clinical outcomes is challenging, necessitating further RCTs and high-quality studies to enhance the success rate of ART.
trial registrationPROSPERO: CRD42022347066.
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.