ArticlePloS one2024
Comparison of early and fully expanded blastocysts on pregnancy and birth outcomes in patients with fresh IVF/ICSI cycles: A retrospective cohort study.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in females as a predictor of embryo acquisition outcomes after IVF/ICSI treatment: a retrospective study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the effect of the early blastocyst on pregnancy and birth outcomes in patients in vitro fertilization/(early rescue) intracytoplasmic sperm injection-embryo transfer [IVF/(early rescue)ICSI-ET] cycles.
methodsIn this retrospective cohort study, 289 patients with single-blastocyst transfer within IVF/(early rescue)ICSI-ET treatment cycle were included and divided into the early (n = 48, Gardner stage = 1 or 2) and the fully expanded blastocyst (n = 241, Gardner stage ≥ 3) groups. The differences in pregnancy and birth outcomes between the two groups were compared.
resultsThere was no significant differences between the two groups in baseline indicators, including demographic characteristics and clinical treatment (P> 0.05).The clinical outcomes indicators in the early and the fully expanded blastocyst groups were compared, including the number of transferable embryos on the third day (D3)5.0 (4.0, 6.8) vs. 6.0 (5.0, 8.0) (P = 0.001), the number of remaining embryos frozen per cycle 1.0 (0.3, 2.0) vs. 3.0 (2.0, 5.0) (P<0.001); the number of cycles of unfrozen embryos 13/48 (27.1%) vs. 12/241 (5.0%) (P<0.001); the pregnancy outcome including the clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) 20/48 (41.7%) vs. 129/241 (53.5%) (P>0.05); the live birth rate (LBR)15/48 (31.3%) vs.106/241 (44.0%) (P>0.05). There were no significant differences in birth outcomes, such as gestational week of labor, mode of delivery, neonatal birth weight, height, Apgar score, sex ratio, and birth defects between the two groups (P>0.05).Multivariate binary logistic regression showed the same result, i.e., early blastocyst transfer in fresh cycle was not a risk factor for clinical pregnancy (OR = 0.516, 95% CI = 0.260-1.022) and live birth (OR = 0.521, 95% CI = 0.252-1.079).
conclusionCompared with the fully expanded blastocyst group, the CPR and LBR in the early blastocyst group of the fresh transfer cycles were relatively ideal, and there were no significant differences in birth outcomes and neonatal status between the two groups.
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.