ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Elective single blastocyst transfer can achieve acceptable clinical pregnancy and live birth rates compared with elective double cleavage-stage embryo transfer in fresh cycles.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the effect of elective single blastocyst transfer (eSBT) and elective double cleavage-stage embryo transfer (eDET) on clinical pregnancy and live birth rates in fresh cycles.
methodsThis retrospective study analyzed a total of 2941 fresh transfer cycles, including 1548 eSBT cycles and 1393 eDET cycles. Clinical pregnancy, twin pregnancy and live birth rates of the two groups were compared.
resultsOverall, the rates of clinical pregnancy and live birth in the eDET group were significantly higher than those in the eSBT group (75.1% vs. 71.3%, P = 0.019; 66.6% vs. 63.0%, P = 0.039). It was shown that eDET lifted the rates of clinical pregnancy and live birth for patients aged less than 35 years (aOR 1.783, 95% CI 1.451-2.191; aOR 1.508, 95% CI 1.262-1.803) but not for patients age 35 years and over (aOR 0.874, 95% CI 0.538-1.421; aOR 1.036, 95% CI 0.638-1.682). The twin pregnancy rate in the eSBT group was significantly lower than that in the eDET group at all ages (aOR 32.116, 95% CI 21.758-47.404; aOR 14.325, 95% CI 5.449-37.657).
conclusionCompared with eDET, eSBT achieves clinically acceptable pregnancy and live birth rates while drastically reducing the risk of twin pregnancy in fresh cycles. It is generally recommended that infertile couples undergo eSBT during fresh cycles when possible, especially for females aged 35 years and over.
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.