Day three versus day two embryo transfer following in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Embryo transfer (ET) was traditionally performed two days after oocyte retrieval; however, developments in culture media have allowed embryos to be maintained in culture for longer periods. Delaying transfer from Day two to Day three would allow for further development of the embryo and might have a positive effect on pregnancy outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To determine if there are any differences in live birth and pregnancy rates when embryo transfer is performed on day three after oocyte retrieval, compared with day two, in infertile couples undergoing treatment with in vitro fertilisation (IVF), including intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid) from the inception of the databases to 26th April 2016. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO portal for ongoing trials plus citation lists of relevant publications, review articles and included studies, as well as abstracts of appropriate scientific meetings. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that compared Day 3 versus Day 2 embryo transfer after oocyte retrieval during an IVF or ICSI treatment cycle in infertile couples. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. The primary outcome measures were live birth rate and ongoing pregnancy rate. MAIN RESULTS: = 0%; low quality evidence). The data suggest that if 0.7% of women undergoing Day two embryo transfer have an ectopic pregnancy, then between 0.2% to 2% of women undergoing Day three embryo transfer would have an ectopic pregnancy.Subgroup analysis for pregnancy outcomes did not identify any differential effect between IVF and ICSI.None of the included studies prespecified complication rate (e.g. OHSS), fetal abnormality or women's evaluation of the procedure as outcomes in their studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Twelve of 15 studies contributed data that could be included in meta-analyses. The quality of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low. Only three of the 15 studies reported data for live birth, although the data for ongoing pregnancy and clinical pregnancy are consistent with the live birth data, suggesting no difference between Day three and Day two embryo transfer for these outcomes. There was no evidence of a difference identified between Day three and Day two embryo transfer for multiple pregnancy, miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy per woman randomised. No data were reported for complication rate, fetal abnormality or woman's evaluation of the procedure. The current evidence has not identified any evidence of differences in pregnancy outcomes between Day two and Day three embryo transfers. Any further studies comparing these timings of embryo transfer are unlikely to alter the findings and we suggest that this review no longer be updated.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".