Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Transfert d'embryons au stade du clivage versus au stade de blastocytes dans la technologie de procréation médicalement assistée

Esta versión no es la más reciente

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002118.pub4Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 11 julio 2012see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
  1. Grupo Cochrane de Ginecología y fertilidad

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

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Demián Glujovsky

    Correspondencia a: Reproductive Medicine, CEGYR (Centro de Estudios en Ginecologia y Reproducción), Buenos Aires, Argentina

    [email protected]

  • Debbie Blake

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

  • Ariel Bardach

    Argentine Cochrane Centre IECS, Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy, Southern American Branch of the Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Buenos Aires, Argentina

  • Cindy Farquhar

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

Contributions of authors

Debbie Blake: for the initial review and updates to 2005, took the lead in writing the protocol and review, performed initial searches of databases for trials, involved in selecting trials for inclusion, performed independent data extraction and quality assessment of the included trials, was responsible for statistical analysis and interpretation of the data. Also contributed to the final analysis and text of the 2012 update.

Cindy Farquhar: for the 2005 update, added in the new studies, redesigned the table of comparisons and rewrote the results section as well as edited the review. Also contributed to the 2007 and 2012 update with assistance in extraction and interpretation of the data and writing in all sections.

Demián Glujovsky: for the 2012 update, took the lead in writing the update of the review, performed new searches of databases for trials, involved in selecting trials for inclusion, performed independent data extraction and quality assessment of the included trials, was responsible for statistical analysis and interpretation of the data in the update.

Ariel Bardach: for the 2012 update, involved in selecting trials for inclusion, performed independent data extraction and quality assessment of the included trials.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • Cindy Farquhar, Not specified.

    University of Auckland

  • Debbie Blake, Not specified.

    Auckland University of Technology

External sources

  • No sources of support supplied

Declarations of interest

No authors have any conflict of interest to declare.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the helpful comments of those who refereed previous versions of this review, in particular Mr Andy Vail and Dr Gayle Jones. Thanks to Dr Plachot, Dr Huisman, Dr Utsunomiya, Dr Hreinsson, Dr Rienzi, Dr Levron, Dr Levitas, Dr Bungum, Dr Papanikolaou, Dr Karaki, Dr Frattarelli, Dr Brugnon and Dr Vanderzwalmen for supplying additional information. Thanks to the librarian Daniel Comandé. Finally, special thanks to the highly supportive team at the Cochrane office in Auckland. Dr Neil Johnson was a review author for the previous version of this review and made a significant contribution to the interpretation of results and performed some data extraction. David Olive, for the initial review, commented on drafts of the protocol and review. Michelle Proctor, for the initial review, was involved in selecting trials for inclusion, performed independent data extraction and quality assessment of the included trials, contributed to discussion and interpretation of results. Quirine Lamberts, for the 2005 update, checked the data and study information extracted.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2022 May 19

Cleavage‐stage versus blastocyst‐stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology

Review

Demián Glujovsky, Andrea Marta Quinteiro Retamar, Cristian Roberto Alvarez Sedo, Agustín Ciapponi, Simone Cornelisse, Deborah Blake

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002118.pub6

2016 Jun 30

Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology

Review

Demián Glujovsky, Cindy Farquhar, Andrea Marta Quinteiro Retamar, Cristian Roberto Alvarez Sedo, Deborah Blake

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002118.pub5

2012 Jul 11

Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology

Review

Demián Glujovsky, Debbie Blake, Ariel Bardach, Cindy Farquhar

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002118.pub4

2007 Oct 17

Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology

Review

Debbie Blake, Cindy Farquhar, Neil Johnson, Michelle Proctor

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002118.pub3

2005 Oct 19

Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted conception

Review

Debbie A Blake, Michelle Proctor, Neil Johnson, David Olive, Cindy M Farquhar, Quirine Lamberts

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002118.pub2

2002 Apr 22

Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted conception

Review

Debbie DA Blake, Michelle Proctor, Neil Johnson, David Olive

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002118

Differences between protocol and review

Addition of cumulative pregnancy rate to the outcomes.

Notes

Conflict of interest added.

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.