Premium
Re: Ultrasound guidance during embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials
Author(s) -
Sallam H. N.
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
ultrasound in obstetrics and gynecology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.202
H-Index - 141
eISSN - 1469-0705
pISSN - 0960-7692
DOI - 10.1002/uog.14859
Subject(s) - medicine , live birth , randomized controlled trial , embryo transfer , meta analysis , ultrasound , cochrane library , odds , obstetrics , gynecology , pregnancy , surgery , pathology , radiology , biology , genetics , logistic regression
We read with interest the article of Teixeira et al.1 published in the February 2015 issue and commend their work. In 2006, we published a meta-analysis of the randomized studies then available, comparing ultrasound-guided embryo transfer to the ‘clinical-touch’ method and found that the live-birth rate was significantly higher when ultrasound guidance was used2. In the same issue of the same Journal, Buckett published a similar meta-analysis and reached the same conclusions3. Subsequently, a Cochrane review was published by Brown et al. in 2007 which found that the live-birth rate was indeed significantly higher when using ultrasound-guided embryo transfer compared to the clinical-touch method4. These findings were accepted by the assisted reproduction community and more workers in the field started to perform their embryo transfers under ultrasound guidance5,6. However, in 2008, Drakeley et al.7 published their large randomized study on 2295 patients and found that the live-birth rate was not significantly higher in the ultrasound-guided embryo transfer group. In their conclusion, the authors stated that their findings were