Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39893354›Full record

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.

Alessandro Bartolacci, Carmine Vitiello, Sofia de Girolamo, Enrico Papaleo, Luca Pagliardini

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. ESHRE recommendations on Good Practice in the IVF laboratory†.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2026
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. The Establishment of a Sheep Embryo Genomic Selection System.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Alessandro BartolacciObstetrics and Gynaecology Unit, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina, 60, 20132, Milan, Italy. bartolacci.alessandr@hsr.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5698-5513
Carmine VitielloEmbryology Laboratory, Darlinghurst Medical Center, Adora Fertility, Darlinghursr Rd 213-219, Sydney, NSW, 2010, Australia.
Sofia de GirolamoObstetrics and Gynaecology Unit, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina, 60, 20132, Milan, Italy.
Enrico PapaleoObstetrics and Gynaecology Unit, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina, 60, 20132, Milan, Italy.
Luca PagliardiniObstetrics and Gynaecology Unit, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina, 60, 20132, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

BlastocystCryopreservationEmbryo, MammalianAbortion, SpontaneousBiopsyEmbryo TransferFemaleFertilization in VitroHumansLive BirthPregnancyPregnancy OutcomePregnancy RateVitrificationDouble cryopreservationEmbryo viabilityLive birthRe-biopsy

Identifiers

PMID39893354
PMCPMC12055744

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.