The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Elective Single-Embryo Transfer versus Double-Embryo Transfer in in Vitro Fertilization
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The risks of premature birth and perinatal death are increased after in vitro fertilization. These risks are mainly due to the high incidence of multiple births, which relates to the number of embryos transferred. METHODS: We performed a randomized, multicenter trial to assess the equivalence of two approaches to in vitro fertilization with respect to the rates of pregnancy that result in at least one live birth and to compare associated rates of multiple gestation. Women less than 36 years of age who had at least two good-quality embryos were randomly assigned either to undergo transfer of a single fresh embryo and, if there was no live birth, subsequent transfer of a single frozen-and-thawed embryo, or to undergo a single transfer of two fresh embryos. Equivalence was defined as a difference of no more than 10 percentage points in the rates of pregnancy resulting in at least one live birth. RESULTS: Pregnancy resulting in at least one live birth occurred in 142 of 331 women (42.9 percent) in the double-embryo-transfer group as compared with 128 of 330 women (38.8 percent) in the single-embryo-transfer group (difference, 4.1 percentage points; 95 percent confidence interval, -3.4 to 11.6 percentage points); rates of multiple births were 33.1 percent and 0.8 percent, respectively (P<0.001). These results do not demonstrate equivalence of the two approaches in rates of live births, but they do indicate that any reduction in the rate of live births with the transfer of single embryos is unlikely to exceed 11.6 percentage points. CONCLUSIONS: In women under 36 years of age, transferring one fresh embryo and then, if needed, one frozen-and-thawed embryo dramatically reduces the rate of multiple births while achieving a rate of live births that is not substantially lower than the rate that is achievable with a double-embryo transfer.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Cross‐sectional studies – what are they good for?
Kesmodel, U. S. (2018) · Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica · doi:10.1111/aogs.13331 · Cited by 523
The costs and consequences of assisted reproductive technology: an economic perspective
Connolly, M. P., Hoorens, S., Chambers, G. M., & on behalf of the ESHRE Reproduction and Society Task Force (2010) · Human Reproduction Update · doi:10.1093/humupd/dmq013 · Cited by 197
Elective single embryo transfer and perinatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Grady, R., Alavi, N., Vale, R., Khandwala, M., & McDonald, S. D. (2012) · Fertility and Sterility · doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.11.033 · Cited by 174
The Harbin Consensus Conference Workshop Group, Chairs:, C., Legro, R. S., Wu, X., Scientific Committee:, Barnhart, K. T., Farquhar, C., Fauser, B. C. J. M., Mol, B., Legro, R. S., et al. (2014) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/humrep/deu218 · Cited by 129
Pregnancy-Related Mortality Among Women With Multifetal Pregnancies.
MacKay, A. P., Berg, C. J., King, J. C., Duran, C., & Chang, J. (2006) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/01.aog.0000200045.91015.c6 · Cited by 75
Metadata
- Authors
- Thurin, A., Hausken, J., Hillensjö, T., Jablonowska, B., Pinborg, A., Strandell, A., & Bergh, C.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 2004-12-02
- Volume
- 351
- Issue
- 23
- Pages
- 2392-2402
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2095296987
- Cited by
- 597
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 32.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Elective Single-Embryo Transfer versus Double-Embryo Transfer in in Vitro Fertilization. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa041032
- The paper
- Thurin, A., Hausken, J., Hillensjö, T., Jablonowska, B., Pinborg, A., Strandell, A., & Bergh, C. (2004). Elective Single-Embryo Transfer versus Double-Embryo Transfer in in Vitro Fertilization. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa041032
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.