Home > DARE Reviews > A review and meta-analysis of...
  • We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information

PubMed Health. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet]. York (UK): Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK); 1995-.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews.

A review and meta-analysis of prospective trials comparing different catheters used for embryo transfer

Review published: 2006.

Bibliographic details: Buckett W M.  A review and meta-analysis of prospective trials comparing different catheters used for embryo transfer. Fertility and Sterility 2006; 85(3): 728-734. [PubMed: 16500345]

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative efficacy of different types of embryo transfer (ET) catheters.

DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective randomized, controlled trials comparing at least two different ET catheters.

SETTING: Infertility centers providing treatment with in vitro fertilization/embryo transfer (IVF-ET).

PATIENT(S): Women undergoing ET.

INTERVENTION(S): Embryo transfer with soft or hard catheters.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Clinical pregnancy rate.

RESULT(S): A total of seven prospective trials were identified that compared soft (Cook or Wallace) catheters with hard (TDT, Frydman, Tomcat, Rocket) catheters. The meta-analysis demonstrated an increased chance of clinical pregnancy when soft ET catheters were used. The TDT catheter was compared against both soft catheters and other hard catheters, showing decreased chance of clinical pregnancy when the TDT catheter was used. Six more prospective trials were identified comparing the Cook and Wallace soft catheters, and the meta-analysis of these data showed no demonstrable difference in clinical pregnancy rates.

CONCLUSION(S): An increased chance of clinical pregnancy is achieved when soft ET catheters are used. There appears to be little difference between the Cook and Wallace soft catheters.

CRD has determined that this article meets the DARE scientific quality criteria for a systematic review.

Copyright © 2014 University of York.

PubMed Health Blog...

read all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...