Faculty of Health, Aarhus University, Nordre Ringgade 1, 8000 Aarhus, Denmark.
Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Regional Hospital Horsens, Sundvej 30, 8700 Horsens, Denmark.
JBRA Assist Reprod. 2021 Jul 21;25(3):480-492. doi: 10.5935/1518-0557.20200099.
Previous studies have indicated that culture media vary in efficiency and outcomes, such as live birth rate, birthweight and embryo quality. Does Vitrolife G5 series culture media result in higher live birth rates and birthweight compared to other common culture media? This study is a systematic review based on the PRISMA criteria. Relevant search terms, mesh terms (PubMed and Cochrane) and Emtree terms (Embase) were identified. We searched the literature using PubMed, Embase and Cochrane, on November 10, 2019. The inclusion criteria involved published articles in English comparing Vitrolife G5 to other common culture media. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0 and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Primary outcomes were live birth rate and birthweight. Secondary outcomes were fertilization rate, implantation rate, biochemical pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, multiple pregnancies and congenital malformations. Of 187 articles screened, 11 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria: Five RCTs and six retrospective cohort studies. Only one study reported live birth rate, showing a non-significantly higher live birth rate for Vitrolife G5 media. Birthweight had equivocal results with three of six studies, showing significantly lower (2)/higher (1) birthweights, whereas the others were non-significant. Overall, there were no significant differences concerning secondary outcomes. The results are equivocal, and we need more studies to evaluate culture media and their effect on short- and long-term health.
先前的研究表明,培养介质在效率和结果方面存在差异,例如活产率、出生体重和胚胎质量。Vitrolife G5 系列培养介质是否会比其他常见的培养介质产生更高的活产率和出生体重?本研究是基于 PRISMA 标准的系统评价。确定了相关的搜索词、主题词(PubMed 和 Cochrane)和 Emtree 术语(Embase)。我们于 2019 年 11 月 10 日在 PubMed、Embase 和 Cochrane 上搜索文献。纳入标准为比较 Vitrolife G5 与其他常见培养介质的英文发表文章。我们纳入了随机对照试验(RCT)和队列研究。使用 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具 2.0 和 Newcastle-Ottawa 量表评估研究质量。主要结局为活产率和出生体重。次要结局为受精率、着床率、生化妊娠率、临床妊娠率、流产率、多胎妊娠和先天性畸形。在筛选出的 187 篇文章中,有 11 篇符合纳入标准:5 项 RCT 和 6 项回顾性队列研究。只有一项研究报告了活产率,显示 Vitrolife G5 介质的活产率略有升高,但无统计学意义。出生体重的结果存在争议,其中 6 项研究中有 3 项显示出生体重显著降低(2)/升高(1),而其余 3 项则无统计学意义。总体而言,次要结局无显著差异。结果存在争议,我们需要更多的研究来评估培养介质及其对短期和长期健康的影响。