Prospective randomized comparison of an ultrasound-guided embryo transfer versus a blind catheter placement

Interim analysis of a randomized clinical trial comparing abdominal versus transvaginal ultrasound‐guided embryo transfer

“…More recent studies have specifically addressed the technique of ET as being critical for optimizing outcome success including factors such as the technique, the type of catheter, and the use of ultrasound (US) guidance 2–5 . The application of ultrasound guidance (2‐D transabdominal, as well as 3‐D and 4‐D ultrasound‐guided) to ET 6 has been described in more than 150 clinical trials including 20 randomized clinical trials 7–26 and four meta‐analyses including a Cochrane review 4,5,27,28 . These studies suggest that ultrasound‐guided ET provides a benefit with respect to increases in clinical pregnancy and implantation rates compared to a blind, clinical touch method and is a critical factor in optimizing pregnancy outcomes.…”

Ultrasound-guided embryo transfer: summary of the evidence and new perspectives. A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Of the 109 relevant manuscripts identified, 59 studies were excluded after examination of the abstracts and 50 studies were further evaluated by retrieving the full text. Finally, after the exclusion of 12 studies, we identified 38 manuscripts (published between 1989 and 2017) eligible for qualitative analysis (Wisanto et al, 1989;Al-Shawaf et al, 1993;Lindheim et al, 1999;Kan et al, 1999;Coroleu et al, 2000;Abdelmassih et al, 2001;Garcıa-Velasco et al, 2001;Kojima et al, 2001;Prapas et al, 2001;Tang et al, 2001;Coroleu et al, 2002;García-Velasco et al, 2002;Matorras et al, 2002;Sallam et al, 2002;Bar Hava et al, 2003;Cruickshank et al, 2003;Marconi et al, 2003;Mirkin et al, 2003;Weissman et al, 2003;de Camargo Martins et al, 2004;Moraga-Sanchez et al, 2004;Li et al, 2005;Maldonado et al, 2005;Flisser et al, 2006;Lambers et al, 2006;Chen et al, 2007;Davar et al, 2007;Kosmas et al, 2007;Drakeley et al, 2008;Eskandar et al, 2008;Zakova et al, 2008;Porat et al, 2010;Bodri et al, 2011;Ammar et al, 2013;Revelli et al, 2016;Saravelos et al, 2016;Karavani et al, 2017, Larue et al, 2017. Qualitative synthesis of the included studies is shown in Tables 1 and 2.…”

Ultrasound guidance during embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

“…However one study (from one record) comparing US guidance with clinical touch was not subsequently included in the quantitative meta‐analysis because there were insufficient data available. Included were: 12 studies (from 14 records) comparing US guidance with clinical touch using the same type of catheter; four studies (from seven records) comparing US guidance with clinical touch using different types of catheter; one study (from one record) comparing US guidance with clinical touch that had participants in the non‐US group using either the same or different types of catheter and that was therefore included in both subgroups; one study (from three records) comparing transvaginal US with transabdominal US using similar catheter type; two studies (from four records) comparing transvaginal US with transabdominal US using different catheter types; and one study (from one record) comparing hysterosonometry before ET with transabdominal US during ET using the same catheter.…”

“…We did not consider that the blinding of participants and outcome assessors was likely to influence findings for the outcomes of interest. However, using different types of catheter between the study arms was considered to be an important source of performance and detection bias in six studies. Nine studies were considered to be at unclear risk of attrition bias because we were not able to identify whether all randomized women were included in the analysis.…”