Skip Navigation

Human Reproduction 2005 20(10):2681-2687; doi:10.1093/humrep/dei153
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (Abstract-only PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (13)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pandian, Z.
Right arrow Articles by Bhattacharya, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Pandian, Z.
Right arrow Articles by Bhattacharya, S.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org

COCHRANE REVIEW

Number of embryos for transfer after IVF and ICSI: a Cochrane review

Zabeena Pandian1,3, Allan Templeton1, Gamal Serour2 and Siladitya Bhattacharya1

1 Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Aberdeen Maternity Hospital, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UK and 2 Egyptian IVF & ET Center, Maadi, Cairo, Egypt

3 To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: ogy211{at}abdn.ac.uk

This paper is based on a Cochrane review (Pandian Z, Bhattacharya S, Ozturk O, Serour GI, Templeton A. Number of embryos for transfer following in vitro fertilization or intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection) published in the Cochrane Library, issue 4, 2004 (updated issue 2, 2005, see www.CochraneLibrary.net for information) reproduced with permission from The Cochrane Collaboration and John Wiley and Son Ltd. Cochrane reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to comments and criticisms, and The Cochrane Library should be consulted for the most recent version of the review.

BACKGROUND: The most common complication of IVF is multiple pregnancy, which occurs in 25% of pregnancies following the transfer of two embryos. Single embryo transfer can minimize twin pregnancies but could also lower live birth rates. Our aim was to perform a systematic review of randomized trials to determine the effectiveness of single versus double embryo transfer. METHODS: Cochrane Collaboration review methods were followed. Randomized controlled trials comparing single and double embryo transfers were identified by searching Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane register of controlled trials. Contents of specialist journals and proceedings from meetings of relevant societies were hand searched. Data were pooled with Rev Man software using the Peto-modified Mantel–Hanzel method. RESULTS: Pooled results from four trials indicate that although double embryo transfer leads to a higher live birth rate per woman [odds ratio (OR) 1.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.47–2.55] in a fresh IVF cycle, comparable results are obtained by subsequent transfer of a frozen embryo (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.87–1.62). The multiple pregnancy rate is significantly higher (OR 62.83, 95% CI 8.52–463.57) after double embryo transfer. CONCLUSIONS: Single embryo transfer significantly reduces the risk of multiple pregnancy, but also decreases the chance of live birth in a fresh IVF cycle. Subsequent replacement of a single frozen embryo achieves a live birth rate comparable with double embryo transfer.

Key words: double embryo transfer/IVF/multiple pregnancies/single embryo transfer


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
C.G. Vergouw, L.L. Botros, P. Roos, J.W. Lens, R. Schats, P.G.A. Hompes, D.H. Burns, and C.B Lambalk
Metabolomic profiling by near-infrared spectroscopy as a tool to assess embryo viability: a novel, non-invasive method for embryo selection
Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2008; 23(7): 1499 - 1504.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
A.M. van Peperstraten, W.L.D.M. Nelen, R.P.M.G Hermens, L. Jansen, E. Scheenjes, D.D.M. Braat, R.P.T.M. Grol, and J.A.M. Kremer
Why don't we perform elective single embryo transfer? A qualitative study among IVF patients and professionals
Hum. Reprod., June 18, 2008; (2008) den156v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
M. C. Magli, E. Van den Abbeel, K. Lundin, D. Royere, J. Van der Elst, L. Gianaroli, and for Committee of the Special Interest Group on Emb
Revised guidelines for good practice in IVF laboratories
Hum. Reprod., June 1, 2008; 23(6): 1253 - 1262.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
G. M. Jones, D. S. Cram, B. Song, G. Kokkali, K. Pantos, and A. O. Trounson
Novel strategy with potential to identify developmentally competent IVF blastocysts
Hum. Reprod., May 13, 2008; (2008) den123v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
S. Polinder, E.M.E.W. Heijnen, N.S. Macklon, J.D.F. Habbema, B.J.C.M. Fauser, and M.J.C. Eijkemans
Cost-effectiveness of a mild compared with a standard strategy for IVF: a randomized comparison using cumulative term live birth as the primary endpoint
Hum. Reprod., February 1, 2008; 23(2): 316 - 323.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
P. Donoso, W. Verpoest, E.G. Papanikolaou, I. Liebaers, H.M. Fatemi, K. Sermon, C. Staessen, J. Van der Elst, and P. Devroey
Single embryo transfer in preimplantation genetic diagnosis cycles for women <36 years does not reduce delivery rate
Hum. Reprod., April 1, 2007; 22(4): 1021 - 1025.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JAMAHome page
R. J. Stillman
A 47-Year-Old Woman With Fertility Problems Who Desires a Multiple Pregnancy
JAMA, February 28, 2007; 297(8): 858 - 867.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
M. van Wely, M. Twisk, B.W. Mol, and F. van der Veen
Is twin pregnancy necessarily an adverse outcome of assisted reproductive technologies?
Hum. Reprod., November 1, 2006; 21(11): 2736 - 2738.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
N. Gleicher and D. Barad
The relative myth of elective single embryo transfer
Hum. Reprod., June 1, 2006; 21(6): 1337 - 1344.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.