Cochrane · systematic review · CD011320
Time‐lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction
Armstrong, S, Bhide, P, Jordan, V, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2019 · Cochrane Library
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
12
current version
GRADE rated
10
No studies
1
Included studies
NR
No studies 1 · 8.3%Ungraded 1 · 8.3%Very low 6 · 50%Low 4 · 33.3%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Current version onlyTLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images compared to conventional incubation and assessment for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction
Population: couples undergoing assisted reproductive technology
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Live birth or ongoing pregnancy TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images vs conventional incubation and assessment | OR 0.91 [0.67, 1.23] | 3 studies · 826 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Miscarriage TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images vs conventional incubation and assessment | OR 1.9 [0.99, 3.61] | 3 studies · 826 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Stillbirth TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images vs conventional incubation and assessment | OR 1 [0.13, 7.49] | 1 study · 76 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Clinical pregnancy TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images vs conventional incubation and assessment | OR 1.06 [0.79, 1.41] | 4 studies · 875 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
TLS utilising embryo selection software compared to TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction
Population: couples undergoing assisted reproductive technology
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Live birth or ongoing pregnancy TLS utilising embryo selection software vs TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images | OR 0.61 [0.32, 1.2] | 1 study · 163 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Miscarriage TLS utilising embryo selection software vs TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images | OR 1.39 [0.64, 3.01] | 2 studies · 463 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Stillbirth TLS utilising embryo selection software vs TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Clinical pregnancy TLS utilising embryo selection software vs TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images | OR 0.97 [0.67, 1.42] | 2 studies · 463 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
TLS utilising embryo selection software compared to conventional incubation and assessment for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction
Population: couples undergoing ART
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Live birth or ongoing pregnancy TLS utilising embryo selection software vs conventional incubation and assessment | OR 1.12 [0.92, 1.36] | 3 studies · 1617 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Miscarriage TLS utilising embryo selection software vs conventional incubation and assessment | OR 0.63 [0.45, 0.89] | 3 studies · 1617 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, indirectness |
Stillbirth TLS utilising embryo selection software vs conventional incubation and assessment | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 600 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical pregnancy TLS utilising embryo selection software vs conventional incubation and assessment | OR 0.95 [0.78, 1.16] | 3 studies · 1617 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness |
TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images compared to conventional incubation and assessment for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction
Population: couples undergoing assisted reproductive technology
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Live birth TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images vs conventional incubation and assessment | OR 0.73 [0.47, 1.13] | 2 studies · 440 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Miscarriage TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images vs conventional incubation and assessment | OR 2.25 [0.84, 6.02] | 2 studies · 440 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Stillbirth TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images vs conventional incubation and assessment | OR 1 [0.13, 7.49] | 1 study · 76 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Clinical pregnancy TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images vs conventional incubation and assessment | OR 0.88 [0.58, 1.33] | 3 studies · 489 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
TLS utilising embryo selection software compared to TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction
Population: couples undergoing assisted reproductive technology
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Live birth TLS utilising embryo selection software vs TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Miscarriage TLS utilising embryo selection software vs TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images | OR 1.39 [0.64, 3.01] | 2 studies · 463 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Stillbirth TLS utilising embryo selection software vs TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical pregnancy TLS utilising embryo selection software vs TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images | OR 0.97 [0.67, 1.42] | 2 studies · 463 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, indirectness |
TLS utilising embryo selection software compared to conventional incubation and assessment for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction
Population: couples undergoing ART
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Live birth TLS utilising embryo selection software vs conventional incubation and assessment | OR 1.21 [0.96, 1.54] | 2 studies · 1017 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Miscarriage TLS utilising embryo selection software vs conventional incubation and assessment | OR 0.73 [0.49, 1.08] | 3 studies · 1351 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, indirectness |
Stillbirth TLS utilising embryo selection software vs conventional incubation and assessment | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical pregnancy TLS utilising embryo selection software vs conventional incubation and assessment | OR 1.17 [0.94, 1.45] | 3 studies · 1351 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
TLS with or without cell‐tracking algorithms versus conventional incubation
Population: embryo incubation in assisted reproduction
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Live birth TLS with or without cell‐tracking algorithms vs conventional incubation | OR 1.11 [0.45, 2.73] | 1 study · 76 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Miscarriage TLS with or without cell‐tracking algorithms vs conventional incubation | OR 0.7 [0.47, 1.04] | 3 studies · 994 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Stillbirth TLS with or without cell‐tracking algorithms vs conventional incubation | OR 1 [0.13, 7.49] | 1 study · 76 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Clinical pregnancy TLS with or without cell‐tracking algorithms vs conventional incubation | OR 1.23 [0.96, 1.59] | 3 studies · 994 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
TLS utilising cell‐tracking algorithms versus conventional incubation
Population: embryo incubation in assisted reproduction
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Miscarriage TLS utilising cell‐tracking algorithms vs conventional incubation | OR 0.67 [0.45, 1.02] | 1 study · 856 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Clinical pregnancy TLS utilising cell‐tracking algorithms vs conventional incubation | OR 1.25 [0.95, 1.64] | 1 study · 856 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
TLS not utilising cell‐tracking algorithms versus conventional incubation
Population: embryo incubation in assisted reproduction
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Live birth TLS not utilising cell‐tracking algorithms vs conventional incubation | OR 1.11 [0.45, 2.73] | 1 study · 76 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Miscarriage TLS not utilising cell‐tracking algorithms vs conventional incubation | OR 1.01 [0.28, 3.72] | 2 studies · 138 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Stillbirth TLS not utilising cell‐tracking algorithms vs conventional incubation | OR 1 [0.13, 7.49] | 1 study · 76 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Clinical pregnancy TLS not utilising cell‐tracking algorithms vs conventional incubation | OR 1.13 [0.56, 2.26] | 2 studies · 138 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |