Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Assisted hatching on assisted conception (in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI))

This is not the most recent version

Information

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001894.pub5Copy DOI
Database:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Version published:
  1. 12 December 2012see what's new
Type:
  1. Intervention
Stage:
  1. Review
Cochrane Editorial Group:
  1. Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Article metrics

Altmetric:

Cited by:

Cited 0 times via Crossref Cited-by Linking

Collapse

Authors

  • Sarah‐Kate Carney

    Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester, UK

  • Sangeeta Das

    Bolton NHS Foundation Trust, Bolton, UK

  • Debbie Blake

    Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

  • Cindy Farquhar

    Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

  • Mourad M Seif

    Correspondence to: Academic Unit of Obstetrics, Gynaecology & Reproductive Health, University of Manchester @ St Mary's Hospital, Manchester, UK

    [email protected]

    [email protected]

  • Linsey Nelson

    Academic Unit of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Cancer and Enabling Science, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

Contributions of authors

Mourad Seif contributed to conceiving the review, designing the review, publishing the protocol, co‐ordinating the review, data collection for the review, developing a search strategy, undertaking searches, screening search results, organising retrieval of papers, screening retrieved papers against inclusion criteria, arbitration on quality and data extraction of papers, interpretation of data, providing a methodological perspective, providing a clinical perspective, providing a policy perspective, editing the review, providing general advice on the review, and performing previous work that was the foundation of the review.

Cindy Farquhar updated the review in July 2005 by completing the new searches, selecting the studies, restructuring the table of comparisons, extracting the data, and rewriting parts of the review. She assisted with the updating of the review in 2007 by identifying the studies and assisting with data extraction and writing.

Debbie Blake was involved in the 2005 update by cross‐checking newly extracted data, assessing inclusion criteria, subgroup analysis, editing, and providing a scientific perspective to the updated text.

Sangeeta Das was involved in the 2007 update by completing the new searches, retrieval of papers, screening retrieved papers against inclusion criteria, extracting data, and rewriting the review.

Sarah‐Kate Carney was involved in the 2012 update by completing the new searches, retrieval of papers, screening retrieved papers against inclusion criteria, extracting data, and rewriting the review.

Linsey Nelson was involved in the 2012 updated by completing the new searches, retrieval of papers, screening retrieved papers against inclusion criteria, extracting data, and editing the review.

Andy Vail assisted the authors by performing the meta‐regression for maternal age and pregnancy outcomes. Catherine Fullwood provided a statistical overview.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • Central Manchester and Manchester Children's University Trust, UK.

  • University of Manchester, UK.

  • University of Auckland, New Zealand.

External sources

  • Ministry of Health, New Zealand.

Declarations of interest

None known

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Sue Furness, Sarah Hetrick and Michelle Proctor of the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group for help with literature searches, and Deborah Thornton (Librarian at St. Mary's Hospital, Manchester) for assistance in retrieving journal articles. Andy Vail performed the meta‐regression in previous updates, for which we are grateful. Catherine Fullwood reviewed the update and provided statistical overview. We gratefully acknowledge those authors who provided extra information about their studies: Professors S Hellebaut, University of Ghent; BS Hurst, Charlotte, North Carolina; SE Lanzendorf, Eastern Virginia Medical School; F Olivennes, Hospital Antoine‐Beclere, Clamart; and MC Magli (SISMER, Reproductive Medicine Unit, Bologna).

Edmond Edi‐Osagie contributed to designing the original review, publishing the protocol, data collection, developing a search strategy, undertaking searches, screening search results, organising retrieval of papers, screening retrieved papers against inclusion criteria, appraising quality of papers, abstracting data from papers, writing to authors of papers for additional information, data management for the review, interpretation of data, providing a methodological perspective, providing a clinical perspective, providing a policy perspective, writing the review, providing general advice on the review, and performing previous work that was the foundation of the review.

Lee Hooper developed the second search strategy, undertook the February 2002 searches, screened these search results, assessed inclusion of all potential studies, appraised the quality of and abstracted data from all included studies, analysed the data (meta‐analysis in RevMan (RevMan 2008), subgrouping, sensitivity analyses, meta‐regression in STATA), interpreted the data, provided a methodological perspective, provided a consumer perspective, wrote the methodology and results sections of the review, and edited the original review.

Phil McGinlay contributed to designing the original review, data collection for the review, developing a search strategy, undertaking searches, screening search results, organising retrieval of papers, screening retrieved papers against inclusion criteria, and appraising quality of papers. Mr McGinlay unfortunately passed away before completion of this review and although he was acknowledged as an author in the two initial versions of this review, in the 2007 version he was removed from the title list.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2021 Mar 17

Assisted hatching on assisted conception (in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI))

Review

Lauren Lacey, Sibte Hassan, Sebastian Franik, Mourad W Seif, M Ahsan Akhtar

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001894.pub6

2012 Dec 12

Assisted hatching on assisted conception (in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI))

Review

Sarah‐Kate Carney, Sangeeta Das, Debbie Blake, Cindy Farquhar, Mourad M Seif, Linsey Nelson

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001894.pub5

2009 Apr 15

Assisted hatching on assisted conception (IVF and ICSI)

Review

Sangeeta Das, Debbie Blake, Cindy Farquhar, Mourad MW Seif

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001894.pub4

2006 Jan 25

Assisted hatching on assisted conception (IVF and ICSI)

Review

Sangeeta Das, Debbie Blake, Cindy Farquhar, Mourad MW Seif

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001894.pub3

2005 Oct 19

Assisted hatching on assisted conception (IVF & ICSI)

Review

Mourad MW Seif, Edmond CO Edi‐Osagie, Cindy M Farquhar, Lee Hooper, Debbie A Blake, Phil McGinlay

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001894.pub2

2003 Oct 20

Effect(s) of assisted hatching on assisted conception (IVF & ICSI)

Review

Edmond CO Edi‐Osagie, Lee Hooper, Phil McGinlay, Mourad MW Seif

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001894

Differences between protocol and review

1. In the 2005 update the following subgroups were investigated:

  • age (where reported in the studies) ≥ 35 years;

  • first cycle versus previous failed cycles of IVF, ICSI, or both;

  • ICSI only cycles;

  • chemical versus laser versus mechanical;

  • thinning versus breach with hole versus complete removal.

In the 2007 update, the subgroup of poor prognosis women (age ≥ 35, poor ovulation induction, previous failed cycles, or where protocol refers to poor prognosis women) and new subgroups of fresh and frozen embryo transfer cycles were added.

No new subgroups were added in the 2012 update

2. For the 2012 update the review was reformatted in line with current recommended Cochrane methods. Current Cochrane methodological standards require one identification name per paper. Papers that had one method but separated results into subgroups had these results pooled for the overall individual outcomes (i.e. live birth, clinical pregnancy, etc.), however the subgroups results were separated accordingly in the subgroup analysis (i.e. fresh versus frozen, first versus repeat attempt, etc.).

Notes

Carter 2003 was included after information regarding the number of couples was provided by the authors.

PICOs

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

The PICO model is widely used and taught in evidence-based health care as a strategy for formulating questions and search strategies and for characterizing clinical studies or meta-analyses. PICO stands for four different potential components of a clinical question: Patient, Population or Problem; Intervention; Comparison; Outcome.

See more on using PICO in the Cochrane Handbook.