4.7 Article

Propensity score-matched study and meta-analysis of cumulative outcomes of day 2/3 versus day 5/6 embryo transfers

期刊

FRONTIERS OF MEDICINE
卷 11, 期 4, 页码 563-569

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11684-017-0535-6

关键词

blastocyst; embryo transfer; cumulative pregnancy rate; cumulative live birth rate; IVF

资金

  1. Ministry of Health Public Foundation of China [201402004]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) [2007CB948104]
  3. Huazhong University of Science and Technology Independent Innovation Research Fund [2013ZHYX010]
  4. Specialized Research Fund for the Commission of Hubei Province [JS-2011002]
  5. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81601348]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The superiority of the cumulative outcomes of day 5/6 embryo transfer to those of day 2/3 embryo transfer in infertile couples has been debated. This retrospective study included data collected from 1051 patients from July 2011 to June 2014. Multiple maternal baseline covariates were subjected to propensity score matching analysis, and each day 5/6 group woman was matched to one day 2/3 group woman. A systematic meta-analysis was conducted to validate the results. After matching was completed, 217 patients on the day 2/3 group were matched with those on the day 5/6 group, and no significant differences in the baseline characteristics were observed between the two groups. The cumulative pregnancy rate (57.14% vs. 53.46%, OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.79-1.70) and cumulative live birth rate (53.00% vs. 49.77%, OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.78-1.66) of day 5/6 embryo transfers were higher than those of day 2/3 embryo transfers, but this difference was not significant. The mean cycles per live birth and mean days per live birth in the day 5/6 group were significantly lower than those in the day 2/3 group. This study demonstrated that day 5/6 embryo transfer is a more cost-effective and time-efficient policy than day 2/3 embryo transfer to produce a live baby.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据