ReviewReproductive medicine and biology
Reproductive Outcomes of Transferring Blastocysts Derived From Frozen-Thawed Cleavage Embryos: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Reproductive medicine and biology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reproductive Outcomes of Transferring Blastocysts Derived From Frozen-Thawed Cleavage Embryos: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Reproductive medicine and biologyReview
- Comment on "Reproductive Outcomes of Transferring Blastocysts Derived From Frozen-Thawed Cleavage Embryos: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis".Reproductive medicine and biologyArticle
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
Background: In in vitro fertilization (IVF), transferring frozen-thawed blastocysts is a widely adopted practice. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the reproductive outcomes of transferring blastocysts derived from frozen-thawed cleavage embryos (FT-CDB group) compared to direct frozen-thawed blastocyst (DFB group) transfers. Methods: We searched the following electronic databases for relevant studies: PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science. Studies were included if they compared the clinical and neonatal outcomes of IVF patients receiving either FT-CDB or DFB transfer with vitrification method. The protocol for this review has been registered in PROSPERO. Results: A total of seven studies (2057 patients) were included in the analysis. Participants in the FT-CDB group demonstrated significantly higher odds of achieving clinical pregnancy (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.03-1.49, Conclusion: Transferring blastocysts derived from frozen-thawed cleavage embryos is associated with higher odds of clinical pregnancy and live birth compared to frozen-thawed blastocyst transfers. Trial Registration: PROSPERO number: CRD42024591620.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.