ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2025
Examining the fate of frozen embryo inventory: an analysis of patients' embryo disposition decisions.
Article 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
purposeTo determine factors associated with embryo disposition decisions at a large academic fertility center.
methodsWe performed a single-center retrospective cohort study of patients who made final embryo disposition (discard or donation to research) between January 1, 2020, and February 28, 2024, via electronic consent. Demographic and cycle-specific variables were collected via chart review. Chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for data analysis (p < 0.05).
resultsOf 1280 patients, 900 (70.3%) discarded embryos and 380 (29.7%) donated to research. Patients who donated were more likely to have a diagnosis of recurrent pregnancy loss (6.1% vs 2.4%, p < 0.002). Patients who chose to donate had transferred more embryos (2 vs 1, p < 0.033) and had transferred more euploid embryos (44.7% vs 36.6%, p < 0.007). There was no difference in total number, number of euploids, or type of embryo disposed (p = 0.24, p = 0.96, p = 0.34). There was no difference observed among those who communicated with the center (p = 0.81) or those using donor gametes (egg p = 0.34, sperm p = 0.29). An additional analysis compared patients who achieved live birth (n = 902) to those who did not (n = 378), and those who donated were more likely to have achieved live birth (32.0% vs 24.1%, p < 0.005). CONCLUSION(S): At final embryo disposition, more patients discarded embryos than donated. Donators were more likely to have recurrent pregnancy loss as their reason for pursuing embryo creation, transfer more embryos across all cycles, and achieve a live birth. Discarders were more likely to have transferred untested or no embryos.
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.