ArticleF&S reports2026
Efficacy and safety of a one-step warming protocol of vitrified blastocyst stage embryos.
Article in F&S reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Only time will tell.F&S reports · 2026Article
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
Objective: To study the effect of a one-step warming technique on survival and clinical outcomes of vitrified-warmed blastocysts in a consecutive cohort of patients. Design: Retrospective consecutive cohort study. Subjects: This study included 1,303 transferred embryos from 950 unique patients treated at three clinics. Exposure: The exposure group included embryos warmed using a one-step warming protocol with a 1M sucrose solution for 1 min. The control group included embryos warmed using traditional, multistep warming, where embryos were exposed to 1M sucrose for 1 min, followed by 3 min in 0.5M sucrose, and 10 mins in washing solutions. Main Outcome Measures: The goal of this study was to compare survival, clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR), and live birth rate (LBR) between multi- and one-step warming techniques. Additionally, subgroup analyses by maternal age, embryo morphology, day of vitrification, and mode of fertilization were also performed. Results: Survival rates were comparable across all comparisons. Pregnancy rates were comparable between multistep and one-step groups (CPR: 43.2% vs. 44.4%; OPR: 34.3% vs. 37.9%; LBR: 34.0% vs. 35.6%). Pregnancy probabilities between warming techniques were comparable between groups at any age point (32 - CPR: 42.6% vs. 47.4%; OPR: 34.9% vs. 39.6%; 42 - CPR: 25.8% vs. 20.7%; OPR: 12.6% vs. 12.9%). Good quality embryos (G2) had a lower chance of pregnancy than top quality embryos (G1) overall, but pregnancy rates were similar between groups (G1 - CPR: 52.2% vs. 55.9%; OPR: 45.7% vs. 49.2%; G2 - CPR: 39.0% vs. 39.4%; OPR: 29.2% vs. 33%). Similarly, Day 6 embryos were less likely to achieve pregnancy than Day 5 embryos, but pregnancy rates were comparable between groups (D5 - CPR: 45.5% vs. 46.5%; OPR: 36.3% vs. 40.2%; D6 - CPR: 27.3% vs. 27.6%; OPR: 18.2% vs. 22.4%). Pregnancy rates between intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) for male factor infertility and in vitro fertilization (IVF) were again comparable between groups (ICSI - CPR: 42.3% vs. 40.7%; OPR: 35.6% vs. 34.5%; IVF - CPR: 45.7% vs. 46.8%; OPR: 35.5% vs. 41.5%). Conclusion: One-step embryo warming provides similar survival and pregnancy outcomes compared with classical multistep warming while decreasing the procedure time by more than 90%.
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.