Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 274

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 63 of the 63 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Fresh versus frozen embryo transfers in assisted reproduction

Open access
Wong, Kai Mee, van Wely, Madelon, Mol, Femke, Repping, Sjoerd, Mastenbroek, Sebastiaan·2017·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In general, in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) implies a single fresh and one or more frozen-thawed embryo transfers. Alternatively, the 'freeze-all' strategy implies transfer of frozen-thawed embryos only, with no fresh embryo transfers. In practice, both strategies can vary technically including differences in freezing techniques and timing of transfer of cryopreservation, that is vitrification versus slow freezing, freezing of two pro-nucleate (2pn) versus cleavage-stage embryos versus blastocysts, and transfer of cleavage-stage embryos versus blastocysts.In the freeze-all strategy, embryo transfers are disengaged from ovarian stimulation in the initial treatment cycle. This could avoid a negative effect of ovarian hyperstimulation on the endometrium and thereby improve embryo implantation. It could also reduce the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) in the ovarian stimulation cycle by avoiding a pregnancy.We compared the benefits and risks of the two treatment strategies. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the freeze-all strategy compared to the conventional IVF/ICSI strategy in women undergoing assisted reproductive technology. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Studies (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and two registers of ongoing trials in November 2016 together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials comparing a freeze-all strategy with a conventional IVF/ICSI strategy which includes fresh transfer of embryos in women undergoing IVF or ICSI treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes were cumulative live birth and OHSS. Secondary outcomes included other adverse effects (miscarriage rate). MAIN RESULTS: = 0%; low-quality evidence) and a higher rate of pregnancy complications (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.92; 2 trials; 1633 women; low-quality evidence). There was no difference in multiple pregnancies per woman after the first transfer (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.44; 2 trials; 1630 women; low-quality evidence), and no data were reported for time to pregnancy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found moderate-quality evidence showing that one strategy is not superior to the other in terms of cumulative live birth rates. Time to pregnancy was not reported, but it can be assumed to be shorter using a conventional IVF/ICSI strategy in the case of similar cumulative live birth rates, as embryo transfer is delayed in a freeze-all strategy. Low-quality evidence suggests that not performing a fresh transfer lowers the OHSS risk for women at risk of OHSS.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd011184.pub2

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

2 retracted

Show all 63 references

Cited by

See all 274

Metadata

Authors
Wong, K. M., van Wely, M., Mol, F., Repping, S., & Mastenbroek, S.
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-03-28
Volume
2
Pages
CD011184-CD011184
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
OpenAlex
W1572565029
Cited by
274
References
63
FWCI
27.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Fresh versus frozen embryo transfers in assisted reproduction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/14651858.cd011184.pub2
The paper
Wong, K. M., van Wely, M., Mol, F., Repping, S., & Mastenbroek, S. (2017). Fresh versus frozen embryo transfers in assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd011184.pub2

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.