MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401749743 · doi:10.3390/medicina60081373

Fresh versus Frozen Embryo Transfer in In Vitro Fertilization/Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection Cycles: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Neonatal Outcomes

2024· review· en· W4401749743 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Raluca Tocariu, Lucia Elena Niculae, Alexandru-Ştefan Niculae, Andreea Carp-Velișcu, Elvira Brătilă

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicina · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntracytoplasmic sperm injectionEmbryo transferMedicineIn vitro fertilisationLive birthCochrane LibraryOdds ratioPopulationMeta-analysisAssisted reproductive technologyObstetricsSmall for gestational ageGynecologyPregnancyGestationBiologyInfertilityInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Objectives: Although considerable research has been devoted to examining the distinctions between fresh and frozen embryo transfer regarding obstetric outcomes and rates of pregnancy success, there is still a scarcity of thorough analyses that specifically examine neonatal outcomes. The objective of our study was to provide an in-depth analysis of neonatal outcomes that occur after the transfer of fresh and frozen embryos (ET vs. FET) in IVF/ICSI cycles. Materials and Methods: Multiple databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Wiley, Scopus, Ovid and Science Direct) were searched from January 1980 to February 2024. Two reviewers conducted the article identification and data extraction, meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria. The methodological quality was evaluated using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) or the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4. Results: Twenty studies, including 171,481 participants in total, were subjected to qualitative and quantitative analyses. A significant increase in preterm birth rates was noted with fresh embryo transfer compared to FET in the overall IVF/ICSI population (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.18–1.35, p < 0.00001), as well as greater odds of a low birth weight (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.27–1.48, p < 0.00001) and small-for-gestational-age infants in this group (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.63–2.00, p < 0.00001). In contrast, frozen embryo transfer can result in macrosomic (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.54–0.65, p < 0.00001) or large-for-gestational-age infants (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.60–0.69, p < 0.00001). No significant difference was observed regarding congenital malformations or neonatal death rates. Conclusions: This systematic review confirmed that singleton babies conceived by frozen embryo transfer are at lower risk of preterm delivery, low birthweight and being small for gestational age than their counterparts conceived by fresh embryo transfer. The data support embryo cryopreservation but suggest that elective freezing should be limited to cases with a proven indication or within the framework of a clinical study.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.036
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations15
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicinaSame topicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin PregnancyFrench-language works237,207