التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
| العنوان: |
Should the flexibility enabled by performing a day-4 embryo transfer remain as a valid option in the IVF laboratory? A systematic review and network meta-analysis. |
| المؤلفون: |
Simopoulou, M, Sfakianoudis, K, Tsioulou, P, Rapani, A, Maziotis, E, Giannelou, P, Grigoriadis, S, Pantou, A, Nikolettos, K, Vlahos, N, Pantos, K, Koutsilieris, M |
| المصدر: |
Journal of Assisted Reproduction & Genetics; Jun2019, Vol. 36 Issue 6, p1049-1061, 13p |
| مصطلحات موضوعية: |
META-analysis, EMBRYO transfer, HUMAN embryo transfer, CHILDBIRTH, BIRTH rate, PREMATURE labor, PUBLICATION bias |
| مستخلص: |
Purpose: The present systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to uniquely bring to literature data supporting the true place of the alternative practice of day-4 embryo transfer (D4 ET) in an IVF laboratory, beyond the one-dimensional option of facilitating a highly demanding program. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in the databases of PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Library, resulting to six prospective along with nine retrospective cohort studies meeting eligibility criteria for inclusion. A comparison of D4 ET with day-2 (D2), day-3 (D3), and day-5 (D5) ET, respectively, was performed employing R statistics. Results: The sourced results indicate no statistically significant difference regarding clinical pregnancy rates, and ongoing pregnancy/live birth rates stemming from the comparison of D4 with D2, D4 with D3, and D4 with D5 ET, respectively. Additionally, no statistically significant difference could be established in respect to cancelation, and miscarriage rates, following the comparison of D4 with D3 and D4 with D5 ET. Interestingly, we report statistically significant lower preterm birth rates associated with D4 ET, in contrast with D5 ET (RR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.05–0.67; p value = 0.01). Conclusions: The aforementioned results may serve as advocates buttressing the option of D4 ET as a valid candidate in the ET decision-making process. Possible limitations of the current study are the publication bias stemming from the retrospective nature of certain included studies, along with various deviations among studies' design, referring to number and quality of transferred embryos, or different culture conditions referring to studies of previous decades. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|
Copyright of Journal of Assisted Reproduction & Genetics is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| قاعدة البيانات: |
Complementary Index |
Full Text Finder