The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Is frozen embryo transfer better for mothers and babies? Can cumulative meta-analysis provide a definitive answer?
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Initial observational studies and a systematic review published 5 years ago have suggested that obstetric and perinatal outcomes are better in offspring conceived following frozen rather than fresh embryo transfers, with reduced risks of preterm birth, small for gestational age, low birth weight and pre-eclampsia. More recent primary studies are beginning to challenge some of these findings. We therefore conducted an updated systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis to examine if these results have remained consistent over time. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis (trend with time) of obstetric and perinatal complications in singleton pregnancies following the transfer of frozen thawed and fresh embryos generated through in-vitro fertilisation. SEARCH METHODS: Data Sources from Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials DARE and CINAHL (1984-2016) were searched using appropriate key words. Observational and randomised studies comparing obstetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies conceived through IVF using either fresh or frozen thawed embryos. Two independent reviewers extracted data in 2 × 2 tables and assessed the methodological quality of the relevant studies using CASP scoring. Both aggregated as well as cumulative meta-analysis was done using STATA. OUTCOMES: Twenty-six studies met the inclusion criteria. Singleton babies conceived from frozen thawed embryos were at lower relative risk (RR) of preterm delivery (0.90; 95% CI 0.84-0.97) low birth weight (0.72; 95% CI 0.67-0.77) and small for gestational age (0.61; 95% CI 0.56-0.67) compared to those conceived from fresh embryo transfers, but faced an increased risk (RR) of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (1.29; 95% CI 1.07-1.56) large for gestational age (1.54; 95% CI 1.48-1.61) and high birth weight (1.85; 95% CI 1.46-2.33). There was no difference in the risk of congenital anomalies and perinatal mortality between the two groups. The direction and magnitude of effect for these outcomes have remained virtually unchanged over time while the degree of precision has improved with the addition of data from newer studies. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: The results of this cumulative meta-analysis confirm that the decreased risks of small for gestational age, low birth weight and preterm delivery and increased risks of large for gestational age and high birth weight associated with pregnancies conceived from frozen embryos have been consistent in terms of direction and magnitude of effect over several years, with increasing precision around the point estimates. Replication in a number of different populations has provided external validity for the results, for outcomes of birth weight and preterm delivery. Meanwhile, caution should be exercised about embarking on a policy of electively freezing all embryos in IVF as there are increased risks for large for gestational age babies and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Therefore, elective freezing should ideally be undertaken in specific cases such as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, fertility preservation or in the context of randomised trials.
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
Cites
1 retracted
D, A. A. M., Oskouian, H., Ahmadi, S., & Oskouian, L. (2010) · Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics · doi:10.1007/s10815-010-9412-9 · Cited by 132
RetractedMeasuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
What to add to nothing? Use and avoidance of continuity corrections in meta‐analysis of sparse data
J. Sweeting, M., J. Sutton, A., & C. Lambert, P. (2004) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1761 · Cited by 1,734
Cumulative Meta-Analysis of Therapeutic Trials for Myocardial Infarction
Lau, J., Antman, E. M., Jimenez-Silva, J., Kupelnick, B., Mosteller, F., & Chalmers, T. C. (1992) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199207233270406 · Cited by 1,140 · cited 1×
“Cumulative meta-analyses (Lau et al., 1992) were carried to track the accumulation of evidence on the obstetrics and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies subsequent to frozen embryo over the period of time.”
Fresh versus Frozen Embryos for Infertility in the Polycystic Ovary Syndrome
Chen, Z.-J., Shi, Y., Sun, Y., Zhang, B., Liang, X., Cao, Y., Yang, J., Liu, J., Wei, D., Weng, N., et al. (2016) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1513873 · Cited by 786
Shapiro, B. S., Daneshmand, S. T., Garner, F. C., Aguirre, M., Hudson, C., & Thomas, S. (2011) · Fertility and Sterility · doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.05.050 · Cited by 664
Maheshwari, A., Pandey, S., Shetty, A., Hamilton, M., & Bhattacharya, S. (2012) · Fertility and Sterility · doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.05.019 · Cited by 513
Self-citationWennerholm, U.-B., Henningsen, A.-K. A., Romundstad, L. B., Bergh, C., Pinborg, A., Skjaerven, R., Forman, J., Gissler, M., Nygren, K. G., & Tiitinen, A. (2013) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/humrep/det272 · Cited by 381
Pelkonen, S., Koivunen, R., Gissler, M., Nuojua-Huttunen, S., Suikkari, A.-M., Hydén-Granskog, C., Martikainen, H., Tiitinen, A., & Hartikainen, A.-L. (2010) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/humrep/dep477 · Cited by 304
Cited by
The health of children conceived by ART: ‘the chicken or the egg?’
Berntsen, S., Söderström-Anttila, V., Wennerholm, U.-B., Laivuori, H., Loft, A., Oldereid, N. B., Romundstad, L. B., Bergh, C., & Pinborg, A. (2019) · Human Reproduction Update · doi:10.1093/humupd/dmz001 · Cited by 451
Neonatal and maternal outcome after frozen embryo transfer: Increased risks in programmed cycles
Ginström Ernstad, E., Wennerholm, U.-B., Khatibi, A., Petzold, M., & Bergh, C. (2019) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2019.03.010 · Cited by 330
Fresh versus frozen embryo transfers in assisted reproduction
Wong, K. M., van Wely, M., Mol, F., Repping, S., & Mastenbroek, S. (2017) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd011184.pub2 · Cited by 274
Zaat, T. R., Kostova, E. B., Korsen, P., Showell, M. G., Mol, F., & van Wely, M. (2023) · Human Reproduction Update · doi:10.1093/humupd/dmad011 · Cited by 133
Lee, J. C., Badell, M. L., & Kawwass, J. F. (2022) · Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology · doi:10.1186/s12958-021-00869-z · Cited by 41
Metadata
- Authors
- Maheshwari, A., Pandey, S., Amalraj Raja, E., Shetty, A., Hamilton, M., & Bhattacharya, S.
- Venue
- Human Reproduction Update
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2017-11-13
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 35-58
- ISSN
- 1355-4786 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2369
- OpenAlex
- W2768946593
- Cited by
- 527
- References
- 34
- FWCI
- 41.46
- 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: Is frozen embryo transfer better for mothers and babies? Can cumulative meta-analysis provide a definitive answer? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/humupd/dmx031
- The paper
- Maheshwari, A., Pandey, S., Amalraj Raja, E., Shetty, A., Hamilton, M., & Bhattacharya, S. (2018). Is frozen embryo transfer better for mothers and babies? Can cumulative meta-analysis provide a definitive answer? Human Reproduction Update. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmx031
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.