试管常识 / 胚胎与实验室
为什么单胚胎移植需要同时看收益与风险？
文献解读 · 2022年论文
研究讨论了什么？
这项系统综述比较单胚胎与双胚胎移植的生育结局和相关风险。评价移植策略不应只看一次是否怀孕，也需要考虑多胎及母婴结局。
如何理解这项结果？
纳入研究的设计和患者背景存在差异。研究中的总体结果不能直接变成某位患者的个人成功率，选择仍需个体化讨论。
进一步读懂这项研究
这篇综述的价值在于把收益和风险放在一起比较。若只关注妊娠发生而忽略多胎及母婴结局，可能对方案形成不完整印象。研究设计不同，也会影响结论能否用于解释因果。
对就诊沟通有什么帮助？
咨询时可以要求分别介绍单次结局、累计结局与多胎风险。不要把不同机构、不同人群的统计直接放在一起比较，也不要把群体数据理解为个人保证。
能否分别说明单次机会、累计机会和多胎风险？
论文原文正文 · 英文
以下为开放许可正文的文字排版版，保留原文语言；图片、表格、公式、附件及独立引文未收录，不是原版PDF。中文解读与英文原文分别标注。
Comparisons of benefits and risks of single embryo transfer versus double embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Ma S, Peng Y, Hu L, Wang X, Xiong Y, Tang Y, Tan J, Gong F.
Abstract
Background
Evidence referring to the trade-offs between the benefits and risks of single embryo transfer (SET) versus double embryo transfer (DET) following assisted reproduction technology are insufficient, especially for those women with a defined embryo quality or advanced age.
Methods
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched based on established search strategy from inception through February 2021. Pre-specified primary outcomes were live birth rate (LBR) and multiple pregnancy rate (MPR). Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were pooled by a random-effects model using R version 4.1.0.
Results
Eighty-five studies (14 randomized controlled trials and 71 observational studies) were eligible. Compared with DET, SET decreased the probability of a live birth (OR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.71–0.85, P < 0.001, n = 62), and lowered the rate of multiple pregnancy (0.05, 0.04–0.06, P < 0.001, n = 45). In the sub-analyses of age stratification, both the differences of LBR (0.87, 0.54–1.40, P = 0.565, n = 4) and MPR (0.34, 0.06–2.03, P = 0.236, n = 3) between SET and DET groups became insignificant in patients aged ≥40 years. No significant difference in LBR for single GQE versus two embryos of mixed quality [GQE + PQE (non-good quality embryo)] (0.99, 0.77–1.27, P = 0.915, n = 8), nor any difference of MPR in single PQE versus two PQEs (0.23, 0.04–1.49, P = 0.123, n = 6). Moreover, women who conceived through SET were associated with lower risks of poor outcomes, including cesarean section (0.64, 0.43-0.94), antepartum haemorrhage (0.35, 0.15-0.82), preterm birth (0.25, 0.21-0.30), low birth weight (0.20, 0.16-0.25), Apgar1 < 7 rate (0.12, 0.02-0.93) or neonatal intensive care unit admission (0.30, 0.14-0.66) than those following DET.
Conclusions
In women aged < 40 years or if any GQE is available, SET should be incorporated into clinical practice. While in the absence of GQEs, DET may be preferable. However, for elderly women aged ≥40 years, current evidence is not enough to recommend an appropriate number of embryo transfer. The findings need to be further confirmed.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12958-022-00899-1.
Background
Increasing success following assisted reproduction technology (ART) has been accompanied by concerns about high rates of multiple pregnancies [1]. Multiple pregnancy increased the risks of obstetric and neonatal complications, including but not limited to miscarriage, pre-eclampsia (PE), prematurity, low birth weight and perinatal mortality [2, 3]. Single embryo transfer (SET) is recommended to reduce the complications of multiple pregnancies following ART [4]. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) data from 2000 to 2017 shows that the proportion of SET has increased from 5.7 to 64.2%, among ART-conceived infants, meanwhile the percentage of multiple births has decreased from 53.1 to 26.4%, and simultaneous steady decreases in preterm birth and low birth weight rates have also been observed [5, 6]. However, this potential gain needs to be balanced against the risk of jeopardising the overall live birth rate (LBR). The latest Cochrane meta-analysis based on 12 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) shows that the chance of live birth was reduced in women undergoing SET compared with double embryo transfer (DET), the summarized relative risk (RR) was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.59–0.75) [7]. In addition, a large ART cycle dataset indicated that SET for any embryo transfer would result in a one-third lower LBR relative to DET [8]. Beyond these comparisons of overall LBR and multiple pregnancy rate (MPR), the studies did not further refine the population applicability of SET and DET, nor did they comprehensively assess the possible complications. Evidence referring to the trade-offs between live birth and multiple pregnancy following ART are insufficient.
It is well known that many patients idealize that twins would be their optimum outcome following ART [9], therefore DET is likely to remain part of clinical practice for the foreseeable future. The current issue arising is that for which patient cohorts are SET or DET most suited [10]. Due to the homogenous population and limited sample size, existing RCTs [11–24] and aggregated meta-analyses [4, 7] comparing the number of embryos transferred do not answer the above question. Clinical practice faces challenges of different patient age, cycles, embryo stages, embryo quality ratings etc., and would benefit from direction regarding which strategy would be most beneficial to specific subgroups. Moreover, although the latest ASRM guidelines have recommended a limit to the number of embryos transferred for different age groups, the evidence for this recommendation has not been disclosed and published [25]. More supporting evidence is therefore needed to assist ART program clinicians and patients.
Large observational studies focusing on the comparisons of different policies regarding the number of embryos transferred are emerging and do provide valid information [26–28]. The diverse population and large sample size offer the possibility of comprehensive subgroup analyses, involving different ages, embryo stages and embryo quality stratification, etc. [26, 29–31]. Additionally, longer follow-up times ensure the observation of reproductive, obstetric and perinatal outcomes. Thus, by integrating the information extracting from RCTs and observational studies, we investigated the overall effectiveness (e.g., LBR and MPR) of SET versus DET, and also focused on (i) whether transferring one or two embryos would be more beneficial to specific subgroups, especially in the consideration of embryo quality and maternal age, and (ii) assessing perinatal and neonatal complications following SET/DET as comprehensively as possible.
Methods
This systematic review adhered to the PRISMA guidelines [32], and was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (registration ID: CRD42021258452). Institutional review board approval was not required as it was a meta-analysis.
Inclusion criteria
RCTs and observational studies comparing benefits and risks of SET versus DET in a single cycle, in infertile women using their own oocytes and embryos were deemed eligible for inclusion. To prevent any confusion between per person and per cycle, studies were excluded if it was not possible to clarify that each woman was included only once.
Literature search
A systematic electronic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and RCT registries including ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, through to February 9, 2021. The bibliographies of relevant studies and reviews were scrutinized for any additional eligible studies not covered by the literature search. The literature search combined the terms and descriptors related to human embryo transplantation concerning literature published in English (Supplemental file for full literature search). Conference abstracts and comments were not considered.
Outcome measures
All the available reproductive, obstetric and perinatal outcomes were measured (Supplemental file for the definition of outcome). Pre-specified primary outcomes were LBR and MPR. The secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), miscarriage, birth weight, delivery gestational age, preterm birth, low birth weight, perinatal mortality, birth defect, caesarean section, gestational diabetes (GDM), PE, antepartum haemorrhage (APH), Apgar 1 < 7, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission.
Study selection and data extraction
Citations were merged in Microsoft Access Database to facilitate management. Duplicates were removed, and two reviewers independently applied the inclusion criteria to all retrieved citations in an un-blinded standardized manner, screened by title, abstract and full text successively. Data on characteristics of study (first author, publication year, location, study design and study period), population (participants, age, major inclusion and exclusion criteria), cycle (type of cycle, first or not and embryo stage), comparison categories and clinical outcomes (sample size, numbers of events and total, mean, standard deviation, risk estimates, 95% CIs, adjusted factors and conclusions) were extracted onto a piloted structured form by two reviewers, independently. The most comprehensive report would be given precedence if there were multiple publications from the same study or data source, while the others might be used as supplementary information. When studies had multiple comparisons, only the information and data of interest were extracted. Any uncertainty or disagreements were resolved through discussion and, if necessary, a consensus could be reached with the help of senior authors.
Quality assessment and statistical analysis
The quality of included RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool [33]. The Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of included observational studies [34]. Comparisons were conducted between SET and DET groups in a single cycle. Considering the inclusion of both RCT and observational studies, meta-analyses were conducted using a Mantel-Haenszel (MH) random-effects model. To assess the possible impact of characteristics of the patients and embryos, subgroup analyses were pre-specified to separate the distinct types of study design (RCT or observational studies), cycle (fresh or frozen), embryo stage (cleavage or blastocyst), embryo quality rating and maternal age. Embryos/blastocysts were classified as good quality (GQE) or non-good quality (PQE) according to the standards established in the respective studies, and the subgroup comparisons were set to transplant a single GQE versus two GQEs (G/GG), a single GQE versus two embryos of mixed quality (GQE + PQE) (G/GP), and a single PQE versus two PQEs (P/PP). Maternal age was divided into three segments, with cut-offs being 35 and 40 years (< 35, 35-40, ≥40 years). Moreover, sensitivity analyses pooled of adjusted ORs, limited to first cycle or elective SET (eSET) cycles were performed to assess the robustness of the findings. Pooled effect size was deemed statistically significant at P < 0.05. Most data were dichotomous, we used the numbers of events in the groups of each study to calculate the ORs with 95% CIs. For continuous parameters, all the units had been harmonized by data conversion prior to analysis, the weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% CIs were pooled to determine the effect size [35]. Heterogeneity was quantified using the estimated I2 statistic [36]. Publication bias was assessed using Begg’s test for analyses enrolling more than 10 studies [37]. The leave-one-out method was used to evaluate whether any single study dominated the findings. All statistical analyses were performed using R version 4.1.0.
Results
Description of included studies
The literature search retrieved 14,938 citations. After removing duplicates, 11,847 abstracts were reviewed and 1071 full-text articles were further assessed for eligibility. Finally, 85 articles [2, 11–24, 26–31, 38–101] involving 339,492 participants, provided extractable data for the quantitative meta-analysis (Fig. 1), including 14 RCTs and 71 observational studies; of which, data extracted by two RCTs [14, 20] came from four references [14, 20, 63, 92], and the other two RCT studies [16, 23] provided both the results of RCTs and observational cohorts. The characteristics of the included studies are presented in Supplementary Table S1. Women from 24 studies were recruited during their first cycle and 44 studies provided data on eSET. Most studies clarified the type of cycles (69 fresh, 11 frozen and 5 both) and the stage of embryo transfer (34 cleavage, 24 blastocyst, 23 both and 4 unclear). Thirteen studies provided results of stratified comparison based on embryo quality (12 G/GG, 11 G/GP and 8 P/PP), and 22 studies were included in the sub-analyses considering different age groups (17 aged < 35, 6 aged 35–40 and 5 aged ≥40 years). The results of quality assessment are presented in Supplementary Table S2. Twelve RCTs reported a randomization method, five carried out allocation concealment and six executed blinding for participants or personnel. Nine observational studies were awarded six stars in quality assessment, 47 studies were graded seven stars and 15 studies were marked eight stars.
〔此处图表、公式、附件或独立引文未收录，请核对期刊原文。〕
Primary outcomes
Live birth rate
Sixty-two studies [11–20, 22–24, 26–31, 38–41, 44, 45, 47–53, 56, 58, 60–62, 64–66, 69, 71, 73–75, 77–84, 86–91, 94, 99] demonstrated a reduced LBR after SET (28,529/85,988, 33.2%) than that after DET (113,658/247,116, 46.0%) in a single cycle (OR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.71–0.85, I2 = 91%, P < 0.001) (Supplementary Fig. S1). The analysis results are presented in Table 1. No publication bias was detected by Begg’s test (P = 0.062).
〔此处图表、公式、附件或独立引文未收录，请核对期刊原文。〕
Among subgroup analyses, when considering different age groups of included patients, an increase in LBR favoring the DET group was noted for patients aged < 35 years (0.71, 0.61–0.84, I2 = 85%, n = 12) and 35–40 years (0.80, 0.69–0.94, I2 = 69%, n = 6), but no difference was observed for patients ≥40 years old (0.87, 0.54–1.40, I2 = 69%, P = 0.565, n = 4; Fig. 2). The difference in the comparison of LBR between groups decreased with age stratification. When considering embryo quality, the LBR was significantly decreased after transferring a single good quality embryo (GQE) compared with two GQEs (0.63, 0.52–0.77, I2 = 82%, n = 7), as well as a single PQE compared with two PQEs (0.57, 0.45–0.71, I2 = 0%, n = 3; Fig. 2). Meanwhile, no difference was noted between a single GQE and two embryos of mixed quality (GQE + PQE) (0.99, 0.77–1.27, I2 = 81%, P = 0.915, n = 8; Fig. 2). Subgroup analyses performed according to embryo stage (cleavage, blastocyst) and cycle type (fresh, frozen) suggested that, the chance of live birth in the DET group was significantly greater than that in the SET group in all the subgroups, with ORs being 0.67 (P < 0.001, n = 32), 0.81 (P = 0.001, n = 25), 0.80 (P < 0.001, n = 53) and 0.74 (P = 0.013, n = 10), respectively. Sub-analysis concerning study design indicated that the combination of RCTs resulted in a lower OR (0.53, 0.44–0.63, I2 = 0%, n = 13), compared with the result obtained from observational studies (0.82, 0.75–0.90, I2 = 93%, n = 49, P for interaction < 0.001).
〔此处图表、公式、附件或独立引文未收录，请核对期刊原文。〕
Multiple pregnancy rate
Forty-five studies [2, 11, 13, 15, 21, 24, 28–31, 38, 39, 43, 44, 48–50, 53, 54, 56–59, 62, 64, 66–69, 72, 75–77, 79–81, 85–87, 91, 93–96, 98] were pooled and found that the MPR was significantly lower in the SET group than in the DET group (0.05, 0.04–0.06, I2 = 2%, P < 0.001) (Supplementary Fig. S2). This suggested that for a woman with a 16.7% (8314/49,645) chance of multiple pregnancy following a single cycle of DET, the rate following a single SET would be between 0.7 and 1.0%. The analysis results are presented in Table 1. No publication bias was detected by Begg’s test (P = 0.531).
In the subgroup analyses of age stratification (Fig. 3), the differences of MPR between SET and DET were stable and significant in women aged < 35 (0.03, 0.03–0.05, I2 = 0%, P < 0.001, n = 11) and 35–40 years (0.04, 0.03–0.06, I2 = 0%, P < 0.001, n = 5), whereas the aggregate result from three studies found that the difference became insignificant in patients aged ≥40 years (0.34, 0.06–2.03, I2 = 0%, P = 0.236, n = 3). Similarly, 10 observational studies investigated the differences in the association between MPR and the number of transferred embryos by embryo quality grade (Fig. 3). In comparison with a single GQE, transferring two GQEs and two embryos of mixed quality (GQE + PQE) both led to significantly higher MPRs, the ORs were 0.06 (0.03–0.10, I2 = 57%, P < 0.001, n = 10) and 0.12 (0.06–0.26, I2 = 66%, P < 0.001, n = 9), respectively. However, the difference in MPR between a single PQE and two PQEs was reduced and was no longer be statistically significant (0.23, 0.04–1.49, I2 = 54%, P = 0.123, n = 6). Moreover, the pooled results did not materially change in the subgroup analyses regarding embryo stage (cleavage, blastocyst), cycle type (fresh, frozen) and study design (RCT, observational study), with pooled ORs being 0.05 (P < 0.001) or 0.06 (P < 0.001).
〔此处图表、公式、附件或独立引文未收录，请核对期刊原文。〕
Secondary Outcomes
Table 2 summarizes the overall analysis results of secondary maternal pregnancy outcomes and neonatal outcomes.
〔此处图表、公式、附件或独立引文未收录，请核对期刊原文。〕
A significant decrease in CPR (37.4% vs. 48.0%, 0.78, 0.71–0.85, I2 = 82%, P < 0.001, n = 60) was noted in the SET group compared with the DET group [11–15, 19, 23, 24, 27–31, 38, 39, 41–44, 48–51, 53–59, 62, 64–67, 69, 70, 72, 74–81, 84, 86, 87, 90, 91, 93–98, 100, 101]. Several subgroup analyses indicated a different direction, no differences of CPR were noted between SET and DET in subgroups of patients aged ≥40 years (0.88, 0.59–1.30, I2 = 70%, n = 5), GQE versus GQE + PQE (1.01, 0.89–1.16, I2 = 0%, n = 9), and frozen cycles (0.79, 0.62–1.00, I2 = 83%, n = 9; Supplementary Table S3, Fig. S3). Forty-three studies [11–14, 16, 19, 20, 23, 28–31, 38–44, 48, 50, 51, 53, 55, 57, 58, 62, 64–66, 69, 72, 74, 77, 79–81, 90, 91, 94, 95, 98] evaluated the miscarriage rates, and no significant difference was found between groups during the overall analysis (15.6% vs. 14.2%, 1.10, 0.95–1.27, I2 = 30%, P = 0.211), neither in all the conducted subgroups (Supplementary Table S4). Seven studies [19, 30, 39, 58, 65, 81, 94] provided information on perinatal mortality, and no difference was observed (0.3% vs 0.7%, 0.71, 0.25–2.06, I2 = 0%, P = 0.532). Compared with DET, mothers with SET had a lower risk of cesarean section (0.64, 0.43–0.94, I2 = 15%, P = 0.024, n = 3). Only one included study [39] reported on GDM, PE and APH in the late pregnancy, there was no significant difference between SET and DET groups with respect to the risk of GDM (0.0% vs. 1.0%, P = 0.623) and PE (3.9% vs. 0.0%, P = 0.132), meanwhile, APH rate was significantly lower in the SET group (10.5% vs. 25.2%, 0.35, 0.15-0.82, P = 0.016).
Eight studies [11, 15, 29, 30, 44, 53, 65, 81], including 2907 live birth cycles, provided data on continuous gestational age at birth. A significantly longer gestational age at birth was found in the SET group compared with the DET group (WMD =0.88 weeks, 95% CI: 0.56–1.20, I2 = 58%, P < 0.001). Moreover, 13 studies [11, 19, 23, 29–31, 38, 39, 44, 53, 65, 77, 81] evaluated preterm birth, and a significantly reduced probability of preterm birth was observed in the SET group (9.9% vs. 31%, 0.25, 0.21–0.30, I2 = 0%, P < 0.001). The overall findings did not materially change in all the conducted subgroup analyses (Supplementary Table S5). Similarly, the overall birth weight of live births in the SET group was significantly higher than that in the DET group in a single cycle (WMD =297.47 g, 95% CI: 208.47–386.46, I2 = 84%, P < 0.001, n = 7). The pooled analysis of low birth weight rate generated a total of 3962 live births from nine studies [19, 23, 29, 30, 38, 39, 44, 77, 81], and revealed a significant decrease in risk of low birth weight in the SET group (7.6% vs. 28.9%, 0.20, 0.16–0.25, I2 = 0%, P < 0.001), the finding was further confirmed by all the conducted subgroup analyses (Supplementary Table S6). Aggregated data from three studies [30, 44, 53] showed that there was no statistical difference in the risk of birth defects between groups (1.6% vs. 1.3%, P = 0.414), while two other studies [39, 81] reported statistically different risks of Apgar 1 < 7 rate (0.0% vs. 7.8%, 0.12, 0.02–0.93, I2 = 0%, P = 0.042, n = 2) and NICU admission rate (8.1% vs. 23.8%, 0.30, 0.14–0.66, I2 = 0%, P = 0.003, n = 2).
Sensitivity Analyses
For the comparison of LBR, sensitivity analyses pooled of adjusted ORs (0.77, 0.68–0.87, P < 0.001, n = 12), limited to first cycle (0.70, 0.61–0.81, P < 0.001, n = 21) and eSET cycles (0.80, 0.72–0.89, P < 0.001, n = 35) confirmed the stability of the overall result (Table 1). The compared results of MPR were robust in all the pre-specified sensitivity analyses, with pooled ORs being 0.05 or 0.06 (P < 0.001; Table 1). No difference of CPR was noted between SET and DET in the summary of adjusted ORs (0.85, 0.61–1.18, P = 0.326, n = 6), while the sensitivity analyses limited to first cycle (0.68, 0.57–0.80, P < 0.001, n = 14) and eSET cycles (0.82, 0.73–0.92, P = 0.001, n = 35) confirmed the stability of the overall result (Supplementary Table S3). Similarly, except that a significantly higher risk of miscarriage was found in the SET group when the included studies were restricted to the first cycle (1.43, 1.10–1.86, P = 0.009, n = 10), no differences were found in all the other sensitivity analyses (Supplementary Table S4). Additionally, both the compared results of preterm birth rate and low birth weight rate were robust in all the pre-specified sensitivity analyses (Supplementary Table S5, 6).
Discussion
This systematic review is the most complete assessment of the short-term and long-term outcomes of SET versus DET to date. The findings of overall effectiveness (e.g., LBR and MPR) of SET versus DET were consistent with current evidence. SET yielded less probability of a live birth (0.78, 0.71-0.85) than DET in a single cycle, while simultaneously reducing the rate of multiple gestation (0.05, 0.04-0.06). By contrast, the present study provided more comprehensive subgroup/sensitivity analyses and tracked more adverse fertility outcomes, further promoted the generation of individual program. Interestingly, changes emerged during several subgroup comparisons.
An important factor that needs to be considered during embryo transfer is maternal age, particularly given the age-dependent decrements in ovarian function [102]. Recruitment data indicated that the effect sizes of LBR and CPR between SET and DET groups gradually increased with increasing age. The increased benefit of a live birth, as well as a decreased rate of multiple pregnancy, favoring the DET group, were noted for patients aged < 35 years (0.71, 0.61–0.84; 0.03, 0.03–0.05) and 35–40 years (0.80, 0.69–0.94; 0.04, 0.03–0.06). At age ≥ 40 years, the differences in LBR (0.87, 0.54–1.40) and MPR (0.34, 0.06–2.03) between the groups were no longer statistically significant. The findings suggested that women < 40 years, including those aged 35–40 years, may have a lower possibility of multiple pregnancy after choosing SET. However, for elderly women ≥40 years old, current evidence is insufficient to recommend an appropriate number of embryos to be transferred. Knowing that older women would suffer greater rates of oocyte aneuploidy and a decline in uterine receptivity [8], women of advanced age are most likely to have multiple embryos transferred as recommended by the ASRM guidelines [25]. There are discrepancies between the current results and the recommendations of the guidelines [25] in terms of the recommended number of embryos to be transferred in women ≥35 years. There is still an argument to be made in favor of SET or DET in these certain situations, the choice must be jointly made by patients and physicians based on the patients’ desires, the individual’s chances of a twin pregnancy and success [103]. More researches need to be devoted to the research in advanced-age infertile women, taking into account the impact of age on reproductive function and that advancing age also leads to a greater risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes [104].
Regarding embryo quality, compared with two GQEs, transferring a single GQE gained a significantly lower possibility of multiple pregnancy (0.06, 0.03–0.10), as well as a lower rate of live birth (0.63, 0.52–0.77). Since the chance of a live birth after a single PQE was only about 57% of that achieved by two PQEs, and there was no statistical difference in the MPR between groups, choosing to the DET might be beneficial in the absence of GQEs. The comparison between a single GQE and two embryos of GQE + PQE indicated that the PQE along with GQE did not improve the effectiveness of transfer, but significantly increased the risks of perinatal complications, including MPR, preterm birth rate and low birth weight rate. The interaction was proposed to explain that pre-implantation embryos could affect the development of surrounding embryos through the release of specific growth factors [105, 106]. Moreover, our sensitivity analyses showed that, despite the same effect size of MPR, eSET produced a slightly reduced difference in LBR between groups, and the ratio was 80% of the DET group, this is perhaps an acceptable LBR on the premise that the MPR could be dramatically reduced. Thus, eSET/SET is recommended when there is one or more GQE, this is consistent with the ASRM guidelines, which recommend SET in cases where a euploid embryo is available [25].
With the apparent shift in the goal of ART, favorable perinatal outcomes have been regarded as crucial as a successful clinical pregnancy [39]. Compared with previously published meta-analyses [4, 7], in addition to the benefits, this study tracked more perinatal and neonatal complications following SET/DET. The findings showed that both the mothers and infants conceived through SET acquired reduced risks of poor outcomes, verified through the lower rates of cesarean section (0.64, 0.43-0.94), APH (0.35, 0.15-0.82), preterm birth (0.25, 0.21-0.30), low birth weight (0.20, 0.16-0.25), Apgar1 < 7 rate (0.12, 0.02-0.93) and NICU admission (0.30, 0.14-0.66). These were justified by similar findings of other studies [107–109]. As multiple pregnancy has been greatly associated with the above complications, the reduction of its incidence in ART cycles using SET might have contributed to the favorable perinatal and neonatal outcomes. In addition to the negative influences on perinatal outcomes, multiple pregnancy could also adversely impact the infant’s first year of life and potentially increase healthcare needs and cost of living throughout the neonatal period up to the age of 1 year [110]. These longer-term outcomes still need to be further tracked and studied, to provide a more complete evaluation and recommendations.
The strength of this study is the big data from observational researches enabled us to address concerns about the generalizability of data from RCTs to routine clinical care [111]. Additionally, we required that each woman was included only once in each included study, as the inclusion of all ART data with multiple cycles would have introduced statistical complexity as well as concern for potential bias [112]. However, several limitations of this study need to be addressed and merit further discussion. First, although multiple sensitivity and subgroup analyses were carried out, significant heterogeneity existed in some analyses. Second, many observational studies do not report the relative effects of adjustment, so we would only use unadjusted data for the main analyses, however, when we used the adjusted outcomes as sensitivity analyses, most of the results were consistent with the main analyses. Nevertheless, our aggregate data lacked information available to adjust some important confounding factors (such as reason for infertility, medical conditions etc.). Third, the problem of insufficient sample size existed in some of our results, such as the comparisons of GDM rate, PE rate, APH rate and NICU admission rate etc., the relatively small sample size may have limited the power to identify a real difference, which therefore requires cautious interpretation.
Conclusions
In conclusion, based on the current evidence, SET yielded less probability of a live birth than DET in a single cycle, while simultaneously reducing the possibility of multiple gestation, as well as its related perinatal and neonatal complications. Subgroup analyses suggested that in women < 40 years old or any GQE is available, SET should be incorporated into clinical practice owing to the significant reduction in MPR and the acceptable LBR. Meanwhile, in the absence of GQEs, DET may be a preferable option because of the significant benefit of a live birth and the insignificant chance of multiple pregnancy. However, for elderly women ≥40 years old, current evidence is insufficient to recommend an appropriate number of embryos to transfer. Further high-quality RCTs or national registry-based cohort studies are still required to confirm these findings that will allow individualized transplantation strategies for different cohorts of infertile women.
Supplementary Information
〔此处图表、公式、附件或独立引文未收录，请核对期刊原文。〕
〔此处图表、公式、附件或独立引文未收录，请核对期刊原文。〕
〔此处图表、公式、附件或独立引文未收录，请核对期刊原文。〕
〔此处图表、公式、附件或独立引文未收录，请核对期刊原文。〕
〔此处图表、公式、附件或独立引文未收录，请核对期刊原文。〕
Abbreviations
ARTAssisted reproduction technology
APHAntepartum haemorrhage
ASRMThe American Society for Reproductive Medicine
CIConfidence interval
CPRClinical pregnancy rate
DETDouble embryo transfer
GDMGestational diabetes
GQEGood quality embryos/blastocysts
LBRLive birth rate
MPRMultiple pregnancy rate
NICUNeonatal intensive care unit
NOSThe Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale
OROdds ratio
PEPre-eclampsia
PQENon-good quality embryos/blastocysts
RCTRandomized controlled trial
RRRelative risk
SETSingle embryo transfer
WMDWeighted mean difference
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Shujuan Ma and Yangqin Peng are joint first authors.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Authors’ contributions
Study concept and design: S.M., Y.P. and J.T. Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: S.M., Y.P., X.W., Y.X. and Y.T. Statistical analysis: S.M., Y.P. and Y.X. Drafting of the manuscript: S.M. and Y.P. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: L.H. J.T. and F.G. Obtained funding: Y.T. and F.G. Administrative, technical, or material support: J.T. and F.G. Study supervision: J.T. and F.G. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
This study was funded by National Key Research and Development Program of China (2016YFC1000206) and Hunan Provincial Grant for Innovative Province Construction (2019SK4012).
Availability of data and materials
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
References
1.BerghCSingle embryo transfer: a mini-reviewHum Reprod2005203233271566500810.1093/humrep/deh744
2.NeubourgDDMangelschotsKVan RoyenEVercruyssenMRyckaertGValkenburgMImpact of patients' choice for single embryo transfer of a top quality embryo versus double embryo transfer in the first IVF/ICSI cycleHum Reprod200217262126251235153810.1093/humrep/17.10.2621
3.The ESHRE Capri Workshop GroupMultiple gestation pregnancyHum Reprod2000151856186410920117
4.McLernonDJHarrildKBerghCDaviesMJde NeubourgDDumoulinJCClinical effectiveness of elective single versus double embryo transfer: meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised trialsBMJ.2010341c69452117753010.1136/bmj.c6945PMC3006495
5.SunderamSKissinDMZhangYJewettABouletSLWarnerLAssisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance - United States, 2017MMWR Surveill Summ2020691203333229410.15585/mmwr.ss6909a1PMC7755269
6.WrightVCSchieveLAReynoldsMAJengGAssisted reproductive technology surveillance--United States, 2000MMWR Surveill Summ20035211614532867
7.KamathMSMascarenhasMKirubakaranRBhattacharyaSNumber of embryos for transfer following in vitro fertilisation or intra- cytoplasmic sperm injectionCochrane Database Syst Rev20208Cd0034163282716810.1002/14651858.CD003416.pub5PMC8094586
8.RobertsSAMcGowanLMark HirstWVailARutherfordALiebermanBAReducing the incidence of twins from IVF treatments: predictive modelling from a retrospective cohortHum Reprod2011265695752116385610.1093/humrep/deq352
9.CuttingRSingle embryo transfer for allBest Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol20185330373010413010.1016/j.bpobgyn.2018.07.001
10.HarbottleSHughesCCuttingRRobertsSBrisonDElective Single Embryo Transfer: an update to UK Best Practice GuidelinesHum Fertil (Camb)2015181651832639143810.3109/14647273.2015.1083144
11.AbuzeidOMDeannaJAbdelazizAJosephSKAbuzeidYMSalemWHThe impact of single versus double blastocyst transfer on pregnancy outcomes: A prospective, randomized control trialFacts Views Vis Obgyn2017919520630250653PMC6143087
12.PradosNQuirogaRCaligaraCRuizMBlascoVPellicerAElective single versus double embryo transfer: Live birth outcome and patient acceptance in a prospective randomised trialReprod Fertil Dev2015277948002512891010.1071/RD13412
13.López-RegaladoMLClaveroAGonzalvoMCSerranoMMartínezLMozasJRandomised clinical trial comparing elective single-embryo transfer followed by single-embryo cryotransfer versus double embryo transferEur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol20141781921982479807210.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.04.009
14.FormanEJHongKHFerryKMTaoXTaylorDLevyBIn vitro fertilization with single euploid blastocyst transfer: a randomized controlled trialFertil Steril20131001007.e12354894210.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.02.056
15.MoustafaMKShededSAEl Aziz MoustaMAElective single embryo transfer versus double embryo transfer in assisted reproductionReprod BioMed Online20081782871861689510.1016/s1472-6483(10)60297-0
16.van MontfoortAPFiddelersAAJanssenJMDerhaagJGDirksenCDDunselmanGAIn unselected patients, elective single embryo transfer prevents all multiples, but results in significantly lower pregnancy rates compared with double embryo transfer: a randomized controlled trialHum Reprod2006213383431625397310.1093/humrep/dei359
17.Bhattacharya S: ISRCTN86466058. EIicacy and Cost EIectiveness of Selective Single Embryo transfer [EIicacy and cost eIectiveness of selective single embryo transfer: a multi-centre randomised controlled trial]. Reference Cochrane Review (Pandian 2020) 20 Mar 2021. 2006.
18.Thurin A: Elective single embryo transfer [Doctoral thesis]. Gothenburg (Sweden): University of Gothenburg. Reference Cochrane Review (Pandian 2020) 20 Mar 2021. 2005.
19.LukassenHGMBraatDDWetzelsAMMZielhuisGAAdangEMMScheenjesETwo cycles with single embryo transfer versus one cycle with double embryo transfer: A randomized controlled trialHum Reprod2005207027081561825410.1093/humrep/deh672
20.ThurinAHauskenJHillensjöTJablonowskaBPinborgAStrandellAElective single-embryo transfer versus double-embryo transfer in in vitro fertilizationN Engl J Med2004351239224021557505510.1056/NEJMoa041032
21.GardnerDKSurreyEMinjarezDLeitzAStevensJSchoolcraftWBSingle blastocyst transfer: a prospective randomized trialFertil Steril2004815515551503740110.1016/j.fertnstert.2003.07.023
22.Davies M: Australian Study of Single Embryo Transfer (ASSET) clinical protocol. A multi-centre double blind randomised controlled trial to compare the outcomes of pregnancy following the transfer of either a single embryo (SET) or two embryos (DET) in an optimal group of patients undergoing in-vitro fertilization (IVF) with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) 2003.
23.MartikainenHTiitinenATomásCTapanainenJOravaMTuomivaaraLOne versus two embryo transfer after IVF and ICSI: a randomized studyHum Reprod200116190019031152789510.1093/humrep/16.9.1900
24.GerrisJDe NeubourgDMangelschotsKVan RoyenEVan de MeersscheMValkenburgMPrevention of twin pregnancy after in-vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection based on strict embryo criteria: a prospective randomized clinical trialHum Reprod199914258125871052799110.1093/humrep/14.10.2581
25.Medicine PCotASfRGuidance on the limits to the number of embryos to transfer: a committee opinionFertil Steril2017107901903
26.ZhuQLinJGaoHWangNWangBWangYThe Association Between Embryo Quality, Number of Transferred Embryos and Live Birth Rate After Vitrified Cleavage-Stage Embryos and Blastocyst TransferFront Physiol2020119303292230510.3389/fphys.2020.00930PMC7456822
27.RaccaADrakopoulosPVan LanduytLWillemCSantos-RibeiroSTournayeHSingle and double embryo transfer provide similar live birth rates in frozen cyclesGynecol Endocrinol2020368248283212464210.1080/09513590.2020.1712697
28.JinHXLvAXWuZTWenSZhangXYJinDCComparative study on the pregnancy outcomes of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer between patients with different ovarian responses (a STROBE-compliant article)Medicine (Baltimore)201998e161913127712610.1097/MD.0000000000016191PMC6635258
29.ParkDSKimJWEumJHLeeWSYoonTKLyuSWClinical and pregnancy outcomes of double and single blastocyst transfers related with morphological grades in vitrified-warmed embryo transferTaiwan J Obstet Gynecol2020593984023241688710.1016/j.tjog.2020.03.011
30.ChenSDuHLiuJLiuHLiLHeYLive birth rate and neonatal outcomes of different quantities and qualities of frozen transferred blastocyst in patients requiring whole embryo freezing stratified by ageBMC Pregnancy Childbirth20202016553312144810.1186/s12884-020-03353-5PMC7596959
31.AldemirOOzelciRBaserEKaplanogluIDilbazSDilbazBImpact of Transferring a Poor Quality Embryo along with a Good Quality Embryo on Pregnancy Outcomes in IVF/ICSI Cycles: a Retrospective StudyGeburtshilfe Frauenheilkd2020808448503281799110.1055/a-1213-9164PMC7428370
32.ShamseerLMoherDClarkeMGhersiDLiberatiAPetticrewMPreferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanationBMJ.2015350g76472555585510.1136/bmj.g7647
33.HigginsJPAltmanDGAssessing risk of bias in included studies Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions Wiley2008187241
34.StangACritical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analysesEur J Epidemiol2010256036052065237010.1007/s10654-010-9491-z
35.TakeshimaNSozuTTajikaAOgawaYHayasakaYFurukawaTAWhich is more generalizable, powerful and interpretable in meta-analyses, mean difference or standardized mean difference?BMC Med Res Methodol201414302455916710.1186/1471-2288-14-30PMC3936842
36.HigginsJPThompsonSGDeeksJJAltmanDGMeasuring inconsistency in meta-analysesBMJ20033275575601295812010.1136/bmj.327.7414.557PMC192859
37.BeggCBMazumdarMOperating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication biasBiometrics.199450108811017786990
38.SuWXuJArhinSKLiuCZhaoJLuXThe Feasibility of All-Blastocyst-Culture and Single Blastocyst Transfer Strategy in Elderly Women: A Retrospective AnalysisBiomed Res Int2020202056341473246200410.1155/2020/5634147PMC7243003
39.SiniIHandayaniNPratiwiAPolimABoedionoABlastocyst elective single embryo transfer improves perinatal outcomes among women undergoing assisted reproductive technology in IndonesiaAsian Pac J Reprod20209118123
40.DemirelCGoksever CelikHTulekFTuysuzGDonmezEErginTThe impact of a poor quality embryo on the implantation chance of a good quality one when transferred together: A study on double blastocyst transfersJ Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod2020510196710.1016/j.jogoh.2020.10196733161131
41.AlecsandruDBarrioAGarridoNAparicioPPellicerAMoffettAParental human leukocyte antigen-C allotypes are predictive of live birth rate and risk of poor placentation in assisted reproductive treatmentFertil Steril2020114480981710.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.05.00832741616
42.Zhang X, Gao Y, Liu W, Liu J, Wu L, Xiong S, et al. Frozen blastocyst embryo transfer vs. frozen cleavage-stage embryo transfer in couples with recurrent implantation failure: a cohort study. Hum Fertil. 2019. 10.1080/14647273.2019.1633021.10.1080/14647273.2019.163302131274037
43.RevelliACanosaSCarossoAFilippiniCPascheroCGennarelliGImpact of the addition of Early Embryo Viability Assessment to morphological evaluation on the accuracy of embryo selection on day 3 or day 5: a retrospective analysisJ Ovarian Res201912733139903810.1186/s13048-019-0547-8PMC6688364
44.ParkDSKimJWChangEMLeeWSYoonTKLyuSWStrategies in the transfer of varying grades of vitrified-warmed blastocysts in women aged over 35 years: A propensity-matched analysisJ Obstet Gynaecol Res2019458498573059086510.1111/jog.13897
45.FreemanMRHindsMSHowardKGHowardJMHillGAGuidance for elective single-embryo transfer should be applied to frozen embryo transfer cyclesJ Assist Reprod Genet2019369399463085941610.1007/s10815-019-01433-wPMC6541681
46.TannusSHatirnazSTanJAtaBTanSLHatirnazEPredictive factors for live birth after in vitro maturation of oocytes in women with polycystic ovary syndromeArch Gynecol Obstet20182971992042899396110.1007/s00404-017-4561-z
47.MuteshiCMOhumaEOChildTBeckerCMThe effect of endometriosis on live birth rate and other reproductive outcomes in ART cycles: A cohort studyHum Reprod Open201820181710.1093/hropen/hoy016PMC627668830895257
48.MehtaVPatelJGuptaRShahSBankerMOne plus one is better than two: Cumulative reproductive outcomes are better after two elective single blastocyst embryo transfers compared to one double blastocyst embryo transferJ Hum Reprod Sci2018111611683015881310.4103/jhrs.JHRS_117_17PMC6094541
49.DobsonSJALaoMTMichaelEVargheseACJayaprakasanKEffect of transfer of a poor quality embryo along with a top quality embryo on the outcome during fresh and frozen in vitro fertilization cyclesFertil Steril20181106556603019696210.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.05.010
50.WintnerEMHershko-KlementATzadikevitchKGhetlerYGonenOWintnerODoes the transfer of a poor quality embryo together with a good quality embryo affect the In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) outcome?J Ovarian Res.20171022808693510.1186/s13048-016-0297-9PMC5237322
51.TannusSSonWYDahanMHElective single blastocyst transfer in advanced maternal ageJ Assist Reprod Genet2017347417482829954910.1007/s10815-017-0906-6PMC5445045
52.MersereauJStanhiserJCoddingtonCJonesTLukeBBrownMBPatient and cycle characteristics predicting high pregnancy rates with single-embryo transfer: an analysis of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology outcomes between 2004 and 2013Fertil Steril20171087507562892328510.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.07.1167
53.ZhangNChenHXuZWangBSunHHuYPregnancy, Delivery, and Neonatal Outcomes of In Vitro Fertilization-Embryo Transfer in Patient with Previous Cesarean ScarMed Sci Monit201622328832952763650410.12659/MSM.900581PMC5027857
54.MonteleonePAMirisolaRJGonçalvesSPBaracatECSerafiniPCOutcomes of elective cryopreserved single or double embryo transfers following failure to conceive after fresh single embryo transferReprod BioMed Online2016331611672731713010.1016/j.rbmo.2016.04.011
55.LiMMaCZhaoWLiWZhaoXRenWPregnancy outcomes of single cleavage-stage embryo transfer in the ultra-short protocolInt J Clin Exp Med2016987608764
56.KeyhanSAcharyaKSAcharyaCRYehJSProvostMPGoldfarbJMHow compliant are in vitro fertilization member clinics in following embryo transfer guidelines? An analysis of 59,689 fresh first in vitro fertilization autologous cycles from 2011 to 2012Fertil Steril201610664552.e12726827610.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.05.012
57.HeQHWangLLiangLLZhangHLZhangCLLiHSClinical outcomes of frozen-thawed single blastocyst transfer in patients requiring whole embryo freezingSyst Biol Reprod Med2016621331382688974110.3109/19396368.2015.1128991
58.HatırnazSHatırnazEDahanMHTanSLOzerAKanat-PektasMIs elective single-embryo transfer a viable treatment policy in in vitro maturation cycles?Fertil Steril2016106169116952767803610.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.08.026
59.Haikin HerzbergerEGhetlerYTamir YanivRBerkovitzAGonenOCohenITime lapse microscopy is useful for elective single-embryo transferGynecol Endocrinol2016328168182722810410.1080/09513590.2016.1188375
60.CrawfordSBouletSLMneimnehASPerkinsKMJamiesonDJZhangYCosts of achieving live birth from assisted reproductive technology: a comparison of sequential single and double embryo transfer approachesFertil Steril20161054444502660406810.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.10.032PMC5125029
61.MounceGMcVeighETurnerKChildTJRandomized, controlled pilot trial of natural versus hormone replacement therapy cycles in frozen embryo replacement in vitro fertilizationFertil Steril201510491520.e12625508710.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.07.1131
62.López RegaladoMLClaveroAGonzalvoMCSerranoMMartínezLMozasJCumulative live birth rate after two single frozen embryo transfers (eSFET) versus a double frozen embryo transfer (DFET) with cleavage stage embryos: a retrospective cohort studyJ Assist Reprod Genet201431162116272526716310.1007/s10815-014-0346-5PMC4250464
63.FormanEJHongKHFranasiakJMScottRTJrObstetrical and neonatal outcomes from the BEST Trial: single embryo transfer with aneuploidy screening improves outcomes after in vitro fertilization without compromising delivery ratesAm J Obstet Gynecol2014210157e1e62414518610.1016/j.ajog.2013.10.016
64.ErcanCMKerimogluOSSakinciMKorkmazCDuruNKErgunAPregnancy outcomes in a university hospital after legal requirement for single-embryo transferEur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol20141751631662448566710.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.01.008
65.ChaiJYeungTWYLeeVCYLiRHWLauEYLYeungWSBLive birth rate, multiple pregnancy rate, and obstetric outcomes of elective single and double embryo transfers: Hong Kong experienceHong Kong Med J2014201021062453150110.12809/hkmj134065
66.YilmazNEngin-ÜstünYInalHGorkemUBardakciYGulermanCThe impact of single embryo transfer policy on pregnancy outcomes after legislative changeGynecol Endocrinol2013296006022365639010.3109/09513590.2013.788629
67.WuKLZhaoHBLiuHZhongWXYuGLChenZJElective single blastocyst transfer is more suitable for normal responders than for high respondersChin Med J20131262125212823769570
68.VélezMPKadochIJPhillipsSJBissonnetteFRapid policy change to single-embryo transfer while maintaining pregnancy rates per initiated cycleReprod BioMed Online2013265065112350713410.1016/j.rbmo.2013.01.017
69.NiinimäkiMSuikkariAMMäkinenSSöderström-AnttilaVMartikainenHElective single-embryo transfer in women aged 40-44 yearsHum Reprod2013283313352317549910.1093/humrep/des399
70.BastuECelikCKeskinGBuyruFEvaluation of embryo transfer time (day 2 vs day 3) after imposed single embryo transfer legislation: when to transfer?J Obstet Gynaecol2013333873902365432210.3109/01443615.2012.761186
71.VirroMRWingerEEReedJLIntravenous immunoglobulin for repeated IVF failure and unexplained infertilityAm J Reprod Immunol2012682182252280535510.1111/j.1600-0897.2012.01169.x
72.Rodríguez BarredoDBTur PadroRManciniFParriego GarcíaMRodríguez GarcíaICoroleu LletgetBElective single embryo transfer and cumulative pregnancy rate: five-year experience in a Southern European CountryGynecol Endocrinol2012284254282211491310.3109/09513590.2011.633662
73.GremeauASBrugnonFBouraouiZPekrishviliRJannyLPoulyJLOutcome and feasibility of elective single embryo transfer (eSET) policy for the first and second IVF/ICSI attemptsEur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol201216045502217817110.1016/j.ejogrb.2011.09.032
74.GuerifFFrapsauceCChavezCCadoretVRoyereDTreating women under 36 years old without top-quality embryos on day 2: a prospective study comparing double embryo transfer with single blastocyst transferHum Reprod2011267757812131074810.1093/humrep/der020
75.Friedman BE, Davis LB, Lathi RB, Westphal LM, Baker VL, Milki AA. Age-related success with elective single versus double blastocyst transfer. ISRN Obst Gynecol. 2011. 10.5402/2011/656204.10.5402/2011/656204PMC323640122191047
76.BissonnetteFPhillipsSJGunbyJHolzerHMahutteNSt-MichelPWorking to eliminate multiple pregnancies: a success story in QuébecReprod BioMed Online2011235005042184075710.1016/j.rbmo.2011.05.020
77.BarriPNCoroleuBCluaETurRPrevention of prematurity by single embryo transferJ Perinat Med2011392372402153488010.1515/jpm.2011.020
78.WangYAKovacsGSullivanEATransfer of a selected single blastocyst optimizes the chance of a healthy term baby: a retrospective population based study in Australia 2004-2007Hum Reprod201025199620052051924910.1093/humrep/deq145
79.SatoWFukudaJKanamoriKKawamuraKKumagaiJKodamaHEvaluation of possible criteria for elective single embryo transferReprod Med Biol.201091071132966242710.1007/s12522-010-0047-4PMC5891758
80.NakagawaKNishiYSugiyamaRKuribayashiYSugiyamaRInoueMElective single cleavage-stage embryo transfer need not result in lower pregnancy rates compared to double cleavage-stage embryo transferJ Obstet Gynaecol Res2010367777822066694510.1111/j.1447-0756.2010.01213.x
81.FauquePJouannetPDavyCGuibertJViallonVEpelboinSCumulative results including obstetrical and neonatal outcome of fresh and frozen-thawed cycles in elective single versus double fresh embryo transfersFertil Steril2010949279351944680610.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.03.105
82.SundströmPSaldeenPCumulative delivery rate in an in vitro fertilization program with a single embryo transfer policyActa Obstet Gynecol Scand2009887007061945544310.1080/00016340902956939
83.RobertsSAFitzgeraldCTBrisonDRModelling the impact of single embryo transfer in a national health service IVF programmeHum Reprod2009241221311885440410.1093/humrep/den355
84.BechouaSAstrucKThouvenotSGirodSChironAJimenezCHow to demonstrate that eSET does not compromise the likelihood of having a baby?Hum Reprod200924307330811975201310.1093/humrep/dep321
85.Van PeperstratenAMKreuwelIAHermensRPNelenWLVan DopPAGrolRPDeterminants of the choice for single or double embryo transfer in twin prone couplesActa Obstet Gynecol Scand2008872262311823189310.1080/00016340701855670
86.StyerAKWrightDLWolkovichAMVeigaCTothTLSingle-blastocyst transfer decreases twin gestation without affecting pregnancy outcomeFertil Steril200889170217081764409510.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.05.036
87.KaluEThumMYAbdallaHReducing multiple pregnancy in assisted reproduction technology: towards a policy of single blastocyst transfer in younger womenBjog.2008115114311501851887410.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01764.x
88.LundinKBerghCCumulative impact of adding frozen-thawed cycles to single versus double fresh embryo transfersReprod BioMed Online20071576821762354110.1016/s1472-6483(10)60695-5
89.DonosoPVerpoestWPapanikolaouEGLiebaersIFatemiHMSermonKSingle embryo transfer in preimplantation genetic diagnosis cycles for women <36 years does not reduce delivery rateHum Reprod200722102110251720453110.1093/humrep/del470
90.VelevaZVilskaSHydén-GranskogCTiitinenATapanainenJSMartikainenHElective single embryo transfer in women aged 36-39 yearsHum Reprod200621209821021674052410.1093/humrep/del137
91.Le LannouDGriveauJFLaurentMCGuehoAVeronEMorcelKContribution of embryo cryopreservation to elective single embryo transfer in IVF-ICSIReprod BioMed Online2006133683751698476710.1016/s1472-6483(10)61441-1
92.KjellbergATCarlssonPBerghCRandomized single versus double embryo transfer: obstetric and paediatric outcome and a cost-effectiveness analysisHum Reprod2006212102161617214810.1093/humrep/dei298
93.SaldeenPSundströmPWould legislation imposing single embryo transfer be a feasible way to reduce the rate of multiple pregnancies after IVF treatment?Hum Reprod200520481556787810.1093/humrep/deh610
94.HenmanMCattJWWoodTBowmanMCDe BoerKAJansenRPSElective transfer of single fresh blastocysts and later transfer of cryostored blastocysts reduces the twin pregnancy rate and can improve the in vitro fertilization live birth rate in younger womenFertil Steril200584162016271635995510.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.05.064
95.HaraTKatsukiTKusudaTOhamaKPregnancy rate, multiple pregnancy rate, and embryo quality: Clues for single blastocyst transfer from double blastocyst transfer in an unselected populationReprod Med Biol200541531602969921810.1111/j.1447-0578.2005.00094.xPMC5906893
96.CrinitiAThyerAChowGLinPKleinNSoulesMElective single blastocyst transfer reduces twin rates without compromising pregnancy ratesFertil Steril200584161316191635995410.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.06.035
97.MartikainenHOravaMLakkakorpiJTuomivaaraLDay 2 elective single embryo transfer in clinical practice: better outcome in ICSI cyclesHum Reprod200419136413661510539010.1093/humrep/deh197
98.KuramotoTBoedionoAEgashiraAMotoishiMSugiokaMFukudaKSelected single blastocyst transfers maintained pregnancy outcome and eliminated multiple pregnanciesReprod Med Biol.2004313182966238110.1111/j.1447-0578.2004.00046.xPMC5891773
99.GerrisJDe SutterPDe NeubourgDVan RoyenEVander ElstJMangelschotsKA real-life prospective health economic study of elective single embryo transfer versus two-embryo transfer in first IVF/ICSI cyclesHum Reprod2004199179231499054710.1093/humrep/deh188
100.RutherfordAJSubak-SharpeRJDawsonKJMargaraRAFranksSWinstonRMLImprovement of in vitro fertilisation after treatment with buserelin, an agonist of luteinising hormone releasing hormoneBr Med J198829617651768313683010.1136/bmj.296.6639.1765PMC2546237
101.SpeirsALLopataAGronowMJAnalysis of the benefits and risks of multiple embryo transferFertil Steril198339468471683240210.1016/s0015-0282(16)46933-5
102.MeldrumDRAdashiEYGarzoVGGleicherNParinaudJPinborgAPrevention of in vitro fertilization twins should focus on maximizing single embryo transfer versus twins are an acceptable complication of in vitro fertilizationFertil Steril20181092232292944766410.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.12.005
103.GleicherNBaradDThe relative myth of elective single embryo transferHum Reprod200621133713441649530410.1093/humrep/del026
104.SundhararajUMMadneMVBiliangadyRGurunathSSwamyAGGopalISTSingle Blastocyst Transfer: The Key to Reduce Multiple Pregnancy Rates Without Compromising the Live Birth RateJ Hum Reprod Sci2017102012072914244910.4103/jhrs.JHRS_130_16PMC5672726
105.TaoTRobichaudAMercierJOuelletteRInfluence of group embryo culture strategies on the blastocyst development and pregnancy outcomeJ Assist Reprod Genet20133063682323912610.1007/s10815-012-9892-xPMC3553343
106.TeklenburgGSalkerMMolokhiaMLaverySTrewGAojanepongTNatural selection of human embryos: decidualizing endometrial stromal cells serve as sensors of embryo quality upon implantationPLoS One20105e102582042201110.1371/journal.pone.0010258PMC2858159
107.TakeshimaKJwaSCSaitoHNakazaAKuwaharaAIshiharaOImpact of single embryo transfer policy on perinatal outcomes in fresh and frozen cycles-analysis of the Japanese Assisted Reproduction Technology registry between 2007 and 2012Fertil Steril201610533746.e32651812210.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.10.002
108.HayashiMSatohSMatsudaYNakaiAThe effect of single embryo transfer on perinatal outcomes in JapanInt J Med Sci20151257622555291910.7150/ijms.10352PMC4278876
109.KissinDMKulkarniADKushnirVAJamiesonDJNumber of embryos transferred after in vitro fertilization and good perinatal outcomeObstet Gynecol20141232392472440260110.1097/AOG.0000000000000106PMC4607031
110.ChambersGMHoangVPLeeEHansenMSullivanEABowerCHospital costs of multiple-birth and singleton-birth children during the first 5 years of life and the role of assisted reproductive technologyJAMA Pediatr2014168104510532522263310.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.1357
111.TreweekSZwarensteinMMaking trials matter: pragmatic and explanatory trials and the problem of applicabilityTrials.200910371949335010.1186/1745-6215-10-37PMC2700087
112.YlandJMesserlianCMinguez-AlarconLFordJBHauserRWilliamsPLMethodological approaches to analyzing IVF data with multiple cyclesHum Reprod2019345495573057649910.1093/humrep/dey374PMC6389861
原文出处与许可
Ma S, Peng Y, Hu L, Wang X, Xiong Y, Tang Y, Tan J, Gong F.
Comparisons of benefits and risks of single embryo transfer versus double embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2022
© The Author(s) 2022
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
本站调整了排版并省略上述非正文项目。转载部分依照所列开放许可提供，不代表原作者或期刊为安孕背书。
Comparisons of benefits and risks of single embryo transfer versus double embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2022
本文为依据公开摘要及可访问资料整理的中文科普短文，并非论文全文翻译，也不代表本机构发表了原论文。单篇文献不能代替医生对个人情况的判断。