ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2026
Cryopreservation duration does not affect pregnancy or neonatal outcomes in single high-quality blastocyst transfers: a multicenter retrospective study.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To study the effect of embryo cryopreservation duration on pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in women transferred with high-quality blastocyst during frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles. Design: Multicenter Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Three tertiary-care academic medical centers. Patients: This retrospective study included a total of 24,101 women who underwent single high-quality blastocyst transfer during their first FET cycles at three tertiary academic medical centers between January 2016 and June 2023. Interventions: Women were categorized into two groups according to the duration of embryo cryopreservation: the short Cryo group consisted of 23,933 women with a storage time of 0-5 years, while the long Cryo group included 168 women with a storage time > 5 years. Women in the long Cryo group were matched to those in the short Cryo group using propensity score matching with a 1:4 ratio. Main outcome measures: The pregnancy outcomes and the neonatal outcomes. Results: After adjusting for potential confounding factors, no significant differences were observed between the two groups in pregnancy outcomes, including biochemical pregnancy (adjust odds ratio [aOR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-1.56; P = 0.831), clinical pregnancy (aOR 1.10, 95% CI, 0.75-1.60; P = 0.638), ectopic pregnancy (aOR 2.15, 95% CI, 0.37-12.56; P = 0.394), miscarriage (aOR 0.95, 95% CI, 0.54-1.69; P = 0.871), and live birth (aOR 1.09, 95% CI, 0.76-1.55; P = 0.646). In addition, no significant differences were observed in neonatal outcomes, including very preterm birth, preterm birth, very low birth weight, low birth weight, high birth weight, birth weight, and gestational age. Conclusions: Our analysis found no evidence of significant associations between prolonged cryopreservation of high-quality blastocysts and adverse pregnancy or neonatal outcomes.
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.