↓ Skip to main content

Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
89 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
160 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002118.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Demián Glujovsky, Cindy Farquhar, Andrea Marta Quinteiro Retamar, Cristian Roberto Alvarez Sedo, Deborah Blake

Abstract

Advances in cell culture media have led to a shift in in vitro fertilisation (IVF) practice from cleavage stage embryo transfer to blastocyst stage transfer. The rationale for blastocyst transfer is to improve both uterine and embryonic synchronicity and enable self selection of viable embryos, thus resulting in better live birth rates. To determine whether blastocyst stage (day 5 to 6) embryo transfers improve the live birth rate, and other associated outcomes, compared with cleavage stage (day 2 to 3) embryo transfers. We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library; 2016, Issue 4), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Bio extracts from inception to 4th April 2016. We also searched registers of ongoing trials and the reference lists of studies retrieved. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared the effectiveness of blastocyst versus cleavage stage transfers. We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were live birth and cumulative clinical pregnancy rates. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, high order pregnancy, miscarriage, failure to transfer embryos, and embryo freezing. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods. We included 27 RCTs (4031 couples or women).The live birth rate following fresh transfer was higher in the blastocyst transfer group (odds ratio (OR) 1.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 1.82; 13 RCTs, 1630 women, I(2) = 45%, low quality evidence) following fresh transfer. This suggests that if 29% of women achieve live birth after fresh cleavage stage transfer, between 32% and 42% would do so after fresh blastocyst stage transfer.There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates per couple of cumulative pregnancy following fresh and frozen-thawed transfer after one oocyte retrieval (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.22; 5 RCTs, 632 women, I(2) = 71%, very low quality evidence).The clinical pregnancy rate was also higher in the blastocyst transfer group, following fresh transfer (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.47; 27 RCTs, 4031 women, I(2) = 56%, moderate quality evidence). This suggests that if 36% of women achieve clinical pregnancy after fresh cleavage stage transfer, between 39% and 46% would do so after fresh blastocyst stage transfer.There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of multiple pregnancy (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.33; 19 RCTs, 3019 women, I(2) = 30%, low quality evidence), or miscarriage (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.50; 18 RCTs, 2917 women, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence). These data are incomplete as under 70% of studies reported these outcomes.Embryo freezing rates were lower in the blastocyst transfer group (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.57; 14 RCTs, 2292 women, I(2) = 84%, low quality evidence). This suggests that if 60% of women have embryos frozen after cleavage stage transfer, between 37% and 46% would do so after blastocyst stage transfer. Failure to transfer any embryos was higher in the blastocyst transfer group (OR 2.50, 95% CI 1.76 to 3.55; 17 RCTs, 2577 women, I(2) = 36%, moderate quality evidence). This suggests that if 1% of women have no embryos transferred in (planned) fresh cleavage stage transfer, between 2% and 4% will have no embryos transferred in (planned) fresh blastocyst stage transfer.The evidence was of low quality for most outcomes. The main limitation was serious risk of bias, associated with failure to describe acceptable methods of randomisation, and unclear or high risk of attrition bias. There is low quality evidence for live birth and moderate quality evidence for clinical pregnancy that fresh blastocyst stage transfer is associated with higher rates than fresh cleavage stage transfer. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in cumulative pregnancy rates derived from fresh and frozen-thawed cycles following a single oocyte retrieval, but the evidence for this outcome was very low quality. Thus, although there is a benefit favouring blastocyst transfer in fresh cycles, it remains unclear whether the day of transfer impacts on cumulative live birth and pregnancy rates. Future RCTs should report rates of live birth, cumulative live birth, and miscarriage to enable couples or women undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) and service providers to make well informed decisions on the best treatment option available.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 160 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 155 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 21%
Student > Master 31 19%
Researcher 24 15%
Unspecified 16 10%
Student > Bachelor 15 9%
Other 41 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 64 40%
Unspecified 32 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 10%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Other 21 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 September 2018.
All research outputs
#767,968
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,484
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,166
of 259,795 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#43
of 132 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 259,795 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 132 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.