SynthesisJournal of health, population, and nutrition2025
Economic evaluation of embryo transfer strategies in in vitro fertilization (IVF): a systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of health, population, and nutrition, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aims to systematically review the economic evaluations of various embryo transfer strategies, including single embryo transfer (SET), double embryo transfer (DET) and others in IVF.
methodsWeb of Science, Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database were searched since January 1980 to 1 October 2023. Full economic evaluations comparing embryo transfer strategies were included; while review articles, editorials, abstracts, and non-English articles were excluded. The CHEERS 2022 checklist was used to assess the quality of the included studies.
findingsOut of 4,336 records, 16 studies were included, mostly from Europe (75%), with a few from North America (19%) and Asia (6%). Most studies (94%) assessed the cost-effectiveness of SET versus DET using cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), one study (6%) used cost-utility analysis (CUA). The Markov model was most common, with some using decision-tree or other modeling approaches. Study perspectives were societal (50%), healthcare system (25%), service provider (12.5%), or insurer (12.5%). The most reported outcomes were live birth rate (50%) and incremental cost per live birth (56%), while other outcomes, such as expected life years or quality-adjusted life years were less frequently reported.
conclusionFindings indicate that SET and SET-based strategies, such as combining fresh and frozen SET cycles or mild stimulation protocols, are often more cost-effective than DET and other strategies, especially among younger women, by reducing maternal and neonatal complications and long-term healthcare costs. Cost-effectiveness, however, varies by maternal age, healthcare system context, modeling approach, patient preferences, and societal willingness-to-pay thresholds. Most evidence comes from high-income countries, but the findings provide insights to guide evidence-based embryo transfer decisions that balance clinical effectiveness, patient preferences, and economic sustainability.
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.