ArticleJournal of ovarian research2024
What is the optimal number of embryos to transfer for POSEIDON group 1 and group 2? A retrospective study.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- How to balance the live birth rate and the multiple pregnancy rate by selecting the cleavage-stage embryo number and quality for POSEIDON Group 1 and Group 2? A retrospective study.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe 2016 Patient-Oriented Strategy Encompassing IndividualizeD Oocyte Number (POSEIDON) criteria redefined the poor responders as low prognosis patients. The embryo transfer strategy for POSEIDON patients remained to be addressed. This study aimed to investigate the optimized number of embryos to transfer for unexpected low-prognosis patients (POSEIDON Group 1 and Group 2) with blastocyst transfer in their first frozen cycle.
methodsA retrospective cohort study of 2970 patients who underwent frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) between January 2018 and December 2021. Patients from POSEIDON Group 1 (N = 219) and Group 2 (N = 135) who underwent blastocyst transfer in their first FET cycles were included and divided into the elective single embryo transfer (eSET) group and the double embryo transfer (DET) group.
resultsFor POSEIDON Group 1, the live birth rate per embryo transfer of the DET group was slightly higher than the eSET group (52.17% vs 46.15%, OR 0.786, 95% CI 0.462-1.337, P = 0.374; adjusted OR (aOR) 0.622, 95% CI 0.340-1.140, P = 0.124), while a significant increase of 20.00% in the multiple birth rate was shown. For Group 2, higher live birth rates were observed in the DET group compared to the eSET group (38.46% vs 20.48%, OR 0.412, 95% CI 0.190-0.892, P = 0.024; aOR 0.358, 95% CI 0.155-0.828, P = 0.016). The difference in the multiple birth rate was 20.00% without statistical significance. Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed that age (OR 0.759, 95% CI .624-0.922, P = 0.006 and OR 0.751, 95% CI 0.605-0.932, P = 0.009) and the number of transferred embryos (OR 0.412, 95% CI 0.190-0.892, P = 0.024 and OR 0.367, 95% CI 0.161-0.840, P = 0.018) were significant variables for the live birth rate in POSEIDON Group 2.
conclusionsThe findings in the present study showed that eSET was preferred in the first frozen cycle for POSEIDON Group 1 to avoid unnecessary risks. Double embryo transfer strategy could be considered to improve the success rate for POSEIDON Group 2 with caution. Further stratification by age is needed for a more scientific discussion about the embryo transfer strategy for POSEIDON patients.
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.