ArticleF&S reports2024
The use of an embryo transfer simulator to compare transfer techniques and pregnancy outcomes among physicians.
Article in F&S reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinician-related variability as an independent determinant of in vitro fertilization success: A retrospective cohort study of intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles.International journal of reproductive biomedicine · 2026Article
- A standardized training allows achieving similar clinical pregnancy rates per top-quality euploid blastocyst transfer across operators.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the association between embryo transfer techniques and pregnancy outcomes. Design: This is a prospective observational study with a retrospective cohort. Setting: University Clinic. Patients: Patients underwent embryo transfers between 2015 and 2020. Intervention/Exposure: Fourteen physicians performed 25 mock embryo transfers on the embryo transfer simulator and completed a questionnaire assessing preferred embryo transfer techniques. Quantitative performance metrics on the embryo transfer simulator were measured. Individual physician embryo transfer success rates were retrospectively collected from all fresh and cryopreserved embryo transfers between January 1, 2015, and January 1, 2020. Associations between embryo transfer techniques (preferred technique and simulator performance metrics) and each physician's historical patient pregnancy outcomes were assessed. Main Outcome Measures: Associations between embryo transfer techniques and live births were assessed. Results: There were significant differences in embryo transfer techniques between physicians, including touches to the fundus, distance to the fundus, duration of embryo transfer, duration of the complete procedure, time spent navigating the cervical canal, velocity of embryo expulsion, time waited after embryo expulsion, and total score on the embryo transfer simulator. After controlling for confounders and multiple transfers per physician, the duration of embryo transfer was significantly associated with live birth, with longer durations associated with decreased live birth rates. Shorter placement distance to the fundus and higher velocity of embryo expulsion were both significantly associated with higher rates of ectopic pregnancy. Conclusions: This study revealed significant differences in transfer techniques among physicians. The use of the embryo transfer simulator for physicians in practice can elucidate differences and create opportunities for data-driven improvement in embryo transfer 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.