MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1858991678 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001894

Effect(s) of assisted hatching on assisted conception (IVF & ICSI)

2003· review· en· W1858991678 on OpenAlexaff
ECO Edi-Osagie, Lee Hooper, P McGinlay, MW Seif

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLive birthMedicineMiscarriagePregnancyRandomized controlled trialOdds ratioMeta-analysisCochrane LibraryObstetricsGynecologyInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Failure of implantation and thus conception might result from inability of the blastocyst to escape from its zona pellucida. Artificial disruption of this coat has been proposed as a method of improving the success of assisted conception. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether assisted hatching of embryos facilitates live births, clinical pregnancy and implantation and whether it impacts on negative outcomes (such as miscarriage). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group trials register (26 November 2002), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2002), MEDLINE (1996 to February 2003), EMBASE (1980 to February 2003) and reference lists of articles. Authors were contacted for missing and/or unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were identified and independently screened by two reviewers. Randomised controlled trials of AH (mechanical, chemical or laser disruption of the zona pellucida prior to embryo replacement) versus no AH that reported live birth, clinical pregnancy or implantation rates were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Qualitative assessments and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. Outcomes were extracted as rates and combined using random effects meta-analysis, sensitivity analysis, subgrouping and meta-regression where appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-three randomised controlled trials (2572 women) were included. There was no significant difference in the odds of live births in the AH compared with control groups (6 RCTs; OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.78; 161 births from 523 women). Women undergoing assisted hatching were significantly more likely to achieve clinical pregnancy (722 clinical pregnancies in 2175 women, OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.09), however the studies were heterogeneous. Implantation data were difficult to analyse due to the practice of replacing multiple embryos in individual women. The trials provided insufficient data to investigate the impact of assisted hatching on several important outcomes, including monozygotic twinning, embryo damage, congenital and chromosomal abnormalities, and in vitro blastocyst development. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to determine any effect of AH on the 'take-home-baby rate' of assisted conception. There are also very few data regarding miscarriage rates and other adverse events. This prevents us from extrapolating the impact of AH on live births from our finding of improved odds of clinical pregnancy.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.027
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.174
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207