ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2025
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.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2025. 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.
- Correlation between multiple embryo transfers and the incidence of preterm birth and low birth weight: a network meta-analysis.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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeFor unexpected low-prognosis patients (Group 1 and Group 2) defined by POSEIDON criteria, how to maximize the live birth rate while controlling the multiple birth rate by tailoring the embryo transfer number and quality?
methodsThis was a retrospective study, including patients from Poseidon Group 1 (N = 672) and Group 2 (N = 503) who underwent cleavage-stage embryo transfer. Logistic regression was used for the comparative analysis of clinical outcomes among subgroups divided by the number and quality of embryos.
resultsFor Group 1, compared to transferring a single good-quality embryo (GQE), a good-quality embryo with a poor-quality embryo (GQE + PQE) did not significantly improve the live birth rate, although increasing in value (40.5% vs 31.9%, P = 0.272), meanwhile obviously raised the multiple birth rate to 28.1% (P = 0.042). For Group 2, double embryo transfer (DET) was associated with a higher live birth rate than single embryo transfer (SET) (22.4% vs 6.3%, P = 0.001) and further analysis indicated that the similar trend observed in the GQE + PQE group compared to the GQE group (26.1% vs 8.5%, P = 0.017) with statistical significance, but without a significant increase in the multiple birth rate (8.3%, P = 1.000).
conclusionsThe study indicated that a single good-quality cleavage-stage embryo was an option for patients in Poseidon Group 1 to avoid the risk of multiple pregnancies. DET with mixed quality cleavage-stage embryo might be an alternative for Poseidon Group 2, given that it improved the pregnancy outcomes while controlling the multiple birth 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.