SynthesisJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2025
Does double cryopreservation as well as double biopsy affect embryo viability and clinical outcomes? Evidence from a systematic review of the literature.
Synthesis in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- ESHRE recommendations on Good Practice in the IVF laboratory†.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2026Guideline
- Impact of double versus single blastocyst biopsy and vitrification on clinical and neonatal outcomes in PGT cycles: A systematic review and meta-analysis of embryo retesting.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Pooled it
- The Establishment of a Sheep Embryo Genomic Selection System.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Impact of PGT Introduction on IVF Laboratory Workload: Lessons Learned from a Single-Center Experience of 5258 Biopsies over a 10-Year Period.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Reproductive Outcomes of Transferring Blastocysts Derived From Frozen-Thawed Cleavage Embryos: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Reproductive medicine and biologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluates the effects of double cryopreservation and re-biopsy on embryo viability and clinical outcomes. Studies of interest were selected from an initial cohort of 1027 potentially relevant records retrieved. PubMed was systematically searched for peer-reviewed original papers identified by keywords and medical subject heading terms. Moreover, we elaborated the evidence tables for double cryopreservation and re-biopsy separately. Data were systematically extracted, focusing on live birth, survival, clinical pregnancy, and miscarriage rates. For each study, we identified absolute numbers (numerator and denominator) related to clinical outcomes. Finally, for each outcome, we calculated the percentage change between the control and study groups. Among studies on double cryopreservation, 13 out of 22 reported no effect on clinical outcomes, suggesting contradictory results. Similarly, findings on re-biopsy were controversial, with seven out of 12 studies showing negative effects on survival and clinical outcomes, while five reported no impact. In our analysis of the evidence tables, we observed a reduction in live birth rates of 22.2% and 39.3% in blastocysts undergoing double vitrification and re-biopsy, respectively. These findings suggest that repeated micromanipulations can impair embryo competence. Therefore, double cryopreservation and re-biopsy should be limited in the selected cases without other options by consulting patients about the possible harmful effects.
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.