Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2013 Jul 29;2013(7):CD003416.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003416.pub4.

Number of embryos for transfer following in vitro fertilisation or intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection

Zabeena Pandian  1 , Jane Marjoribanks, Ozkan Ozturk, Gamal Serour, Siladitya Bhattacharya
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Number of embryos for transfer following in vitro fertilisation or intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection

Zabeena Pandian et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Update in

Abstract

Background: Multiple embryo transfer during in vitro fertilisation (IVF) increases multiple pregnancy rates causing maternal and perinatal morbidity. Single embryo transfer is now being seriously considered as a means of minimising the risk of multiple pregnancy. However, this needs to be balanced against the risk of jeopardising the overall live birth rate.

Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different policies for the number of embryos transferred in couples who undergo assisted reproductive technology (ART).

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE, from inception to July 2013. We handsearched reference lists of articles, trial registers and relevant conference proceedings and contacted researchers in the field.

Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different policies for the number of embryos transferred following IVF or intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in subfertile women. Studies of fresh or frozen and thawed transfer of one, two, three or four embryos at cleavage or blastocyst stage were eligible.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and extracted the data. The overall quality of the evidence was graded in a summary of findings table.

Main results: Fourteen RCTs were included in the review (2165 women). Thirteen compared cleavage-stage transfers (2017 women) and two compared blastocyst transfers (148 women): one study compared both. No studies compared repeated multiple versus repeated single embryo transfer (SET). DET versus repeated SETDET was compared with repeated SET in three studies of cleavage-stage transfer. In these studies the SET group received either two cycles of fresh SET (one study) or one cycle of fresh SET followed by one frozen SET in a natural or hormone-stimulated cycle (two studies). When these three studies were pooled, the cumulative live birth rate after one cycle of DET was not significantly different from the rate after repeated SET (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.62, three studies, n=811, I(2)=0%, low quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a 40% chance of live birth following a single cycle of DET, the chance following repeated SET would be between 30% and 42%. The multiple pregnancy rate was significantly higher in the DET group (OR 30.54, 95% CI 7.46 to 124.95, three RCTs, n = 811, I(2) = 23%, low quality evidence), suggesting that for a woman with a 15% risk of multiple pregnancy following a single cycle of DET, the risk following repeated SET would be between 0% and 2%. Single-cycle DET versus single-cycle SETA single cycle of DET was compared with a single cycle of SET in 10 studies, nine comparing cleavage-stage transfers and two comparing blastocyst-stage transfers. When all studies were pooled the live birth rate was significantly higher in the DET group (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.68 to 2.57, nine studies, n = 1564, I(2) = 0%, high quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a 40% chance of live birth following a single cycle of DET, the chance following a single cycle of SET would be between 22% and 30%. The multiple pregnancy rate was also significantly higher in the DET group (OR 8.47, 95% CI 4.97 to 14.43, 10 studies, n = 1612, I(2) = 45%, high quality evidence), suggesting that for a woman with a 15% risk of multiple pregnancy following a single cycle of DET, the risk following a single cycle of SET would be between 1% and 4%. The heterogeneity for this analysis was attributable to a study with a high rate of cross-over between treatment arms. Other comparisons Other fresh cycle comparisons were evaluated in three studies which compared DET versus transfer of three or four embryos. Live birth rates did not differ significantly between the groups for any comparison, but there was a significantly lower multiple pregnancy rate in the DET group than in the three embryo transfer (TET) group (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.99, two studies, n = 343, I(2) = 0%).

Authors' conclusions: In a single fresh IVF cycle, single embryo transfer is associated with a lower live birth rate than double embryo transfer. However, there is no evidence of a significant difference in the cumulative live birth rate when a single cycle of double embryo transfer is compared with repeated SET (either two cycles of fresh SET or one cycle of fresh SET followed by one frozen SET in a natural or hormone-stimulated cycle). Single embryo transfer is associated with much lower rates of multiple pregnancy than other embryo transfer policies. A policy of repeated SET may minimise the risk of multiple pregnancy in couples undergoing ART without substantially reducing the likelihood of achieving a live birth. Most of the evidence currently available concerns younger women with a good prognosis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None

Figures

1
1
Methodological quality graph: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies.
2
2
Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.
3
3
Study flow diagram.
4
4
Forest plot of comparison: 2 Repeated single versus mixed policies, outcome: 2.1 Cumulative live birth.
5
5
Forest plot of comparison: 2 Repeated single versus mixed policies, outcome: 2.2 Multiple pregnancy.
6
6
Forest plot of comparison: 3 Single versus multiple (in a single cycle), outcome: 3.1 Live birth.
7
7
Funnel plot of comparison: 3 Single versus multiple (in a single cycle), outcome: 3.1 Live birth.
8
8
Forest plot of comparison: 3 Single versus multiple (in a single cycle), outcome: 3.2 Multiple pregnancy.
2.1
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 Repeated single versus mixed policies, Outcome 1 Cumulative live birth.
2.2
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2 Repeated single versus mixed policies, Outcome 2 Multiple pregnancy.
2.3
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2 Repeated single versus mixed policies, Outcome 3 Clinical pregnancy rate.
2.4
2.4. Analysis
Comparison 2 Repeated single versus mixed policies, Outcome 4 Miscarriage.
3.1
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3 Single versus multiple (in a single cycle), Outcome 1 Live birth.
3.2
3.2. Analysis
Comparison 3 Single versus multiple (in a single cycle), Outcome 2 Multiple pregnancy.
3.3
3.3. Analysis
Comparison 3 Single versus multiple (in a single cycle), Outcome 3 Clinical pregnancy rate.
3.4
3.4. Analysis
Comparison 3 Single versus multiple (in a single cycle), Outcome 4 Miscarriage.
4.1
4.1. Analysis
Comparison 4 Other fresh cycle comparisons, Outcome 1 Live or cumulative live birth.
4.2
4.2. Analysis
Comparison 4 Other fresh cycle comparisons, Outcome 2 Multiple pregnancy.
4.3
4.3. Analysis
Comparison 4 Other fresh cycle comparisons, Outcome 3 Clinical pregnancy.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

References

References to studies included in this review

ASSETT 2003 {unpublished data only}
    1. Norman RJ, Wang JX, Davies MJ. Australian Study of Single Embryo Transfer (ASSET) clinical protocol. A multi‐centre double blind randomised controlled trial to compare the outcomes of pregnancy following the transfer of either a single embryo (SET) or two embryos (DET) in an optimal group of patients undergoing in‐vitro fertilization (IVF) with or without intra‐cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). www.controlled‐trials.com/isrctn/pf/86466058 2006.
ECOSSE 2006 {unpublished data only}
    1. Bhattacharya S. Efficacy and Cost Effectiveness of Selective Single Embryo transfer. www.controlled‐trials.com/isrctn/pf/86466058. 2006.
Fernandez‐Sanchez 2012 {published data only}
    1. Fernandez‐Sanchez. Elective single embryo transfer (e‐SET) vs. double embryo transfer (eDET): live birth outcome and patient acceptance in a prospective randomized open trial. Fertility and Sterility In press. - PubMed
    1. Fernandez‐Sanchez. Single vs Double Embryo Transfer (SET). http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00814398?term=embryo+AND+trans... 2011.
Gardner 2004 {published data only}
    1. Gardner DK, Surrey E, Minjarez D, Leitz A, Stevens J, Schoolcraft WB. Single blastocyst transfer: a prospective randomized trial. Fertility and Sterility 2004;81(3):551‐5. - PubMed
Gerris 1999 {published data only}
    1. Gerris J, Neubourg D, Mangelschots K, Royen E, Vande Meerssche M, Valkenburg M. Prevention of twin pregnancy after in‐vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection based on strict embryo criteria: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Human Reproduction 1999;14(10):2581‐7. - PubMed
Heijnen 2006 {published data only}
    1. Heijnen EMEW, Klinkert ER, Schmoutziguer APE, Eijkemans MJC, Velde ER, Broekmans FJM. Prevention of multiple pregnancies after IVF in women 38 and older: a randomized study. Reproductive BioMedicine Online; www.rbmonline.com/Article/2339 on web 5 July 2006;13(3):386‐93. - PubMed
Komori 2004 {published data only}
    1. Komori S, Kasumi H, Horiuchi I, Hamada Y, Suzuki C, Shigeta M, et al. Prevention of multiple pregnancies by restricting the number of transferred embryos: randomized control study. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2004 Sep;270(2):91‐3. - PubMed
Lukassen 2005 {published data only}
    1. Lukassen HGM, Braat DDM, Wetzels AMM, Zeilhuis GA, Adang EMM, Scheenjes E, Kremer JAM. Two cycles with single embryo transfer versus one cycle with double embryo transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Human Reproduction 2005;20(3):702‐8. - PubMed
Martikainen 2001 {published data only}
    1. Martikainen H, Tiitinen A, Tomas C, Tapanainen J, Orava M, Tuomivaara L et al. Finnish ET study group. One versus two embryo transfer after IVF and ICSI: a randomized study. Human Reproduction 2001;16(9):1900‐3. - PubMed
Mostajeran 2006 {published data only}
    1. Mostajeran F, Haftbaradaran E. Pregnancy and multiple births rate after transferring 2 or 3 embryos. Journal of Research in Medical Sciences 2006;11(2):113‐5.
Thurin 2004 {published data only}
    1. Thurin A, Hausken J, Hillensjo T, Jablonowska B, Pinborg A, Strandell A, Bergh C. Elective single‐embryo transfer versus double‐embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization. The New England Journal of Medicine 2004;351:2392‐402. - PubMed
    1. Thurin‐Kjellberg A, Olivius C, Bergh C. Cumulative live‐birth rates in a trial ofsingle embryo or double embryo transfer. The New England Journal of Medicine 2009;361:18‐9. - PubMed
Thurin 2005 {unpublished data only}
    1. Thurin. Elective single embryo transfer. Dissertation 2005.
van Montfoort 2006 {published data only}
    1. Fiddelers AAA, Montfoort A, Dirksen CD, et al. Single versus double embryo transfer: cost‐effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized clinical trial. Human Reproduction 2006;21(8):2090‐7. - PubMed
    1. Fiddlers AAA, Montfoort APA, Dirksen CD, et al. Single versus double embryo transfer: cost‐effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial. Human Reproduction 2006;21(8):2090‐7. - PubMed
    1. Montfoort APA, Fiddelers AAA, Janssen JM, Derhaag JG, Dirksen CD, Dunselman GAJ, et al. In unselected patients, elective single embryo transfer prevents all multiples, but results in significantly lower pregnancy rates compared with double embryo transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Human Reproduction 2006;21(2):338‐3. - PubMed
Vauthier‐Brouzes 1994 {published data only}
    1. Vauthier‐Brouzes D, Lefebvre G, Sylvie L, Gonzales J, Darbois Y. How many embryos should be transferred in in vitro fertilization? A prospective randomized study. Fertility and Sterility 1994;62(2):339‐42. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Bowman 2004 {published data only}
    1. Bowman M. Reducing the multiple pregnancy rate in ART. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand 2004;Suppl 3:S132‐5. - PubMed
Elgindy 2011 {published data only}
    1. Elgindy EA, Abou‐Setta AM, Mostafa MI. Blastocyst‐stage versus cleavage‐stage embryo transfer in women with high oestradiol concentrations: randomized controlled trial. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 2011;23(6):789‐98. [PUBMED: 22050864] - PubMed
Forman 2012 {published data only}
    1. Forman EJ, Hong KH, Ferry KM, Tao X, Treff NR, Scott RT. Blastocyst euploid selective transfer (BEST): An RCT of comprehensive chromosome screening single embryo transfer (CCS‐SET) vs double embryo transfer (DET)‐equivalent pregnancy rates, eliminates twins. 68th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, San Diego, CA United States. 2012; Vol. 98 (3 Suppl 1):S49.
Frattarelli 2003 {published data only}
    1. Frattarelli JL, Leondires MP, McKeeby JL, Miller BT, Segars JH. Blastocyst transfer decreases multiple pregnancy rates in in vitro fertilization cycles: a randomized controlled trial. Fertility and Sterility 2003;79(1):228‐30. - PubMed
Gardner 1998 {published data only}
    1. Gardner D K, Schoolcraft W B, Wagley L, Schlenker T, Stevens J, Hesla J. A prospective randomized trial of blastocyst culture and transfer in in‐vitro fertilization. Human Reproduction 1998;13(12):3434‐40. - PubMed
Guerif 2011 {published data only}
    1. Guerif F, Frapsauce C, Chavez C, Cadoret V, Royere D. Treating women under 36 years old without top‐quality embryos on day 2: A prospective study comparing double embryo transfer with single blastocyst transfer. Human Reproduction 2011;26(4):775‐81. - PubMed
Heijnen 2007 {published data only}
    1. Heijnen EM, Eijkemans MJ, Klerk C, Polinder S, Beckers NG, Klinkert ER, et al. A mild treatment strategy for in‐vitro fertilisation: a randomised non‐inferiority trial. Lancet 2007;369(9563):743‐9. - PubMed
Levitas 2004 {published data only}
    1. Levitas E, Lunenfeld E, Hackmon‐Ram R, Sonin Y, Har‐Vardi I, Potashnik G. A prospective, randomized study comparing blastocyst versus 48‐72 h embryo transfer in women failed to conceive three or more in‐vitro fertilization treatment cycles. Abstracts from the 57th Annual Meeting of ASRM. 2001.
    1. Levitas E, Lunenfeld E, Har‐Vardi I, Albotiano S, Sonin Y, Hackmon‐Ram R, et al. Blastocyst‐stage embryo transfer in patients who failed to conceive in three or more day 2‐3 embryo transfer cycles: a prospective, randomized study. Fertility and Sterility 2004;81(3):567‐71. - PubMed
    1. Levitas E, Lunenfeld E, Shoham‐Vardi I, Hackmon‐Ram R, Albotiano S, Sonin Y, et al. Blastocyst stage versus 48‐72h embryo transfer in women who failed to conceive on three or more IVF treatment cycles: a prospective, randomized study. ESHRE Conference. Bologna, 2000:O‐021.
Livingstone 2001 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Bowman M. Reducing the multiple pregnancy rate in ART. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand 2004;Suppl 3:S132‐5. - PubMed
    1. Livingstone M, Bowman M. Single blastocyst transfer: a prospective randomised trial. Abstracts of the 17th World Congress on Fertility and Sterility 2001:218.
    1. Livingstone MS. Single blastocyst transfer: a prospective randomized trial. Master of Medicine Treatise, Faculty of Medicine, University of Sydney 2003.
Motta 1998 A & B {published data only}
    1. Motta LA, Alegretti JR, Pico M, Sousa JW, Baracat EC, Serafini P. Blastocyst vs. cleaving embryo transfer: a prospective randomized trial. Fertility and Sterility 1998;70 Suppl 1:17.
Moustafa 2008 {published data only}
    1. Moustafa MK, Sheded SA, Mousta MAEL. Elective single embryo transfer versus double embryo transfer in assisted reproduction. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 2008:Article 3173. - PubMed
Pantos 2004 {published data only}
    1. Pantos K, Makrakis E, Stavrou D, Karantzis P, Vaxevanoglou T, Tzigounis V. Comparison of embryo transfer on day 2, day 3, and day 6: a prospective randomized study. Fertility and Sterility 2004;81(2):454‐5. - PubMed
Staessen 1993 {published data only}
    1. Staessen C, Janssenswillen C, Abbeel E, Devroey P, Steirteghem AC. Avoidance of triplet pregnancies by elective transfer of two good quality embryos. Human Reproduction 1993;8(10):1650‐3. - PubMed
van Montfoort 2005 {published data only}
    1. Montfoort APA, Dumoulin JCM, Land JA, Coonen E, Derhaag JG, Evers JLH. Elective single embryo transfer (eSET) policy in the first three IVF/ICSI treatment cycles. Human Reproduction 2005;20(2):433‐6. - PubMed

References to studies awaiting assessment

Obrado 2012 {unpublished data only}
    1. Obrado EC. Single embryo transfer vs. double embryo transfer in an oocyte donation programme. http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01228474?term=embryo+AND+trans... 2012.

References to ongoing studies

Abuzeid 2012 {unpublished data only}
    1. Abuzeid M. Comparing the results of one blastocyst transfer versus two in good prognosis patients going through in vitro fertilisation (IVF) with intra cytoplasmic sperm injections (ICSI) and embryo transfer (ET): a prospective, randomized study. http://www.controlled‐trials.com/ISRCTN69937179 2012.
Scott 2013 {unpublished data only}
    1. Scott RT. Single Embryo Transfer of a Euploid Embryo Versus Double Embryo Transfer [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01408433]. http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01408433?term=embryo+transfer&....

Additional references

ASRM 2012
    1. American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Elective single embryo transfer. Fertility and Sterility 2012;97:835‐42. - PubMed
Berkowits 1996
    1. Berkowits RL, Lynch L, Stone J, Alvarez M. The current status of multifetal pregnancy reduction. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1996;174:1265‐72. - PubMed
Chambers 2007
    1. Chambers GM, Chapman MG, Grayson N, Shanahan M, Sullivan EA. Babies born after ART treatment cost more than non ART babies. A cost analysis of inpatient birth admission costs of singletion and multiple gestation pregnancies. Human Reproduction 2007;22(12):3108‐15. - PubMed
De Mouzon 2010
    1. Mouzon J, Goossens V, Bhattacharya S, Castilla JA, Ferraretti AP, Korsak V, et al. the European IVF‐ Monitoring (EIM) Consortium for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Assisted Reproductive Technology in Europe 2006: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Human Reproduction 2010;25:1851‐62. - PubMed
Doyle 1996
    1. Doyle P. The outcome of multiple pregnancy. Human Reproduction 1996;11 Suppl 1:110‐20. - PubMed
ESHRE 2000
    1. The ESHRE Capri Workshop Group. Multiple gestation pregnancy. Human Reproduction 2000;15(7):1856‐64. - PubMed
ESHRE 2012
    1. Sullivan E. Single embryo transfer reduces the risk of perinatal mortality. ESHRE Abstract no: O‐247. Wednesday 4 July 2012, 10.30 hrs EEST. - PubMed
Fiddelers 2007
    1. Fiddelers AA, Severens JL, Dirksen CD, Dumoulin JC, Land JA, Evers JL. Economic evaluations of single versus double embryo transfer in IVF. Human Reproduction Update 2007 Jan‐Feb;13(1):5‐13. - PubMed
FIVNAT 1995
    1. FIVNAT (French In Vitro National). Pregnancies and births resulting from in vitro fertilization: French National Registry, analysis of data 1986 to 1990. Fertility and Sterility 1995;64:746‐56. - PubMed
Garel 1992
    1. Garel M, Blondel B. Assessment at one year of the psychological consequences of having triplets. Human Reproduction 1992;7:729‐32. - PubMed
Garel 1997
    1. Garel M, Salobir C, Blondel B. Psychological consequences of having triplets: a four‐year follow up study. Fertility and Sterility 1997;67:1162‐5. - PubMed
Gelbaya 2010
    1. Gelbaya TA, Tsoumpou I, Nardo L. The likelihood of live birth and multiple birth after single versus double embryo transfer at the cleavage stage: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Fertility and Sterility 2010;94:936‐45. - PubMed
Gerris 2004
    1. Gerris J, Sutter P, Neubourg D, et al. A real life prospective health economic study of elective single embryo transfer versus two embryo transfer in first IVF/ICSI cycles. Human Reproduction 2004;19(4):917‐23. - PubMed
Giorgetti 1995
    1. Giorgetti G, Terriou P, Auquier P, Hans E, Spach JL, Salzmann J. Embryo score to predict implantation after in‐vitro fertilization: based on 957 single embryo transfers. Human Reproduction 1995;10:2427‐31. - PubMed
Glujovsky 2012
    1. Glujovsky D, Blake D, Farquhar C, Bardach A. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 7. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002118.pub4] - DOI - PubMed
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Khalaf 2008
    1. Khalaf Y, El‐Toukhy T, Coomarasamy A, Kamal A, Bolton V, Braude P. Selective single blastocyst transfer reduces the multiple pregnancy rate and increases pregnancy rates: a pre‐ and postintervention study. BJOG 2008 Feb;115(3):385‐90. - PMC - PubMed
Laverge 2001
    1. Laverge H, Sutter P, Elst J, Dhont M. A prospective, randomized study comparing day 2 and day 3 embryo transfer in human IVF. Human Reproduction 2001;16(3):47680. - PubMed
Ledger 2006
    1. Ledger WL, Anumba D, Marlow N, Thomas CM, Wilson ECF, the Cost of Multiple Births Study group (COMBS group). The costs to the NHS of multiple births after IVF treatment in the UK. BJOG: An international Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 2006;113(1):21‐5. - PubMed
Lieberman 1998
    1. Lieberman B. An embryo too many?. Human Reproduction 1998;13:2664‐6. - PubMed
Ludwig 2000
    1. Ludwig M, Schopper B, Katalinic A, Sturm R, Al‐Hasani S, Diedrich K. Experience with the elective transfer of two embryos under the conditions of the German embryo protection law: results of a retrospective data analysis of 2573 transfer cycles. Human Reproduction 2000;15:319‐24. - PubMed
Marek 1999
    1. Marek D, Langley M, Gardner DK, Confer N, Doody KM, Doody KJ. Introduction of blastocyst culture and transferfor all patients in an in vitro fertilization program. Fertility and Sterility 1999;72(6):1035‐40. - PubMed
Martin 1998
    1. Martin PM, Welch HG. Probabilities for singleton and multiple pregnancies after in vitro fertilization. Fertility and Sterility 1998;70:478‐81. - PubMed
McKinney 1996
    1. McKinney MK, Tuber SB, Downery JI. Multifetal pregnancy reduction: psychodynamic implications. Psychiatry 1996;59:393‐407. - PubMed
McLernon 2010
    1. McLernon DJ, Harrild K, Bergh C, Davies MJ, Neubourg D, Dumoulin JCM, et al. Clinical effectiveness of elective single versus double embryo transfer: meta‐analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials. BMJ October 2010;341:c6945. - PMC - PubMed
Papanikolaou 2006
    1. Papanikolaou EG, Camus M, Kolibianakis EM, Landuyt L, Steirteghem A, Devroey P. In vitro fertilization with single blastocyst‐stage versus single cleavage‐stage embryos. The New England Journal of Medicine 2006;354(11):1139‐46. - PubMed
Preutthipan 1996
    1. Preutthipan S, Amso N, Curtis P, Shaw RW. The influence of number of embryos transferred on pregnancy outcome in women undergoing in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF‐ET). Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand 1996;79(10):613‐7. - PubMed
Roberts 2011
    1. Roberts SA, McGowan L, Vail A, Brison DR. The use of single embryo tranfer to reduce the incidence of twins: Implications and questions for practice from the 'towardSET?' project. Human Fertility 2011;14(2):89‐96. - PubMed
Sebire 2000
    1. Sebire NJ. Swedish in vitro fertilisation study. Lancet 2000;355:845. - PubMed
Thurin 2006
    1. Kjellberg AT, Carlsson P, Bergh C. Randomized single versus double embryo transfer: obstetric and paediatric outcome and a cost‐effectiveness analysis. Human Reproduction 2006;21(1):210‐6. - PubMed
Tiitinen 2001
    1. Titinen A, Halttunen M, Harkki P. Elective single embryo transfer: the value of cryopreservation. Human Reproduction 2001;16(6):1140‐4. - PubMed
van Heesch 2010
    1. Heesch MMJ, Bonsel GJ, Dumoulin JCM, Evers LH, Hoeven MAHBM, et al. Reducing the number of twin pregnancies in IVF by single embryo transfer: the TwinSing study. BMC Pediatrics 2010;10(75):1471. - PMC - PubMed
Vilska 1999
    1. Vilska S, Tiitinen A, Hyden‐Granskog C, Hovatta O. Elective transfer of one embryo results in an acceptable pregnancy rate and eliminates the risk of multiple birth. Human Reproduction 1999;14(9):2392‐5. - PubMed
Wadhawan 2009
    1. Wadhawan R, Oh W, Perritt RL, McDonald SA, Das A, Poole WK, et al. Twin gestation and neurodevelopmental outcome in extremely low birth weight infants. Pediatrics 2009;123(2):e220‐7. - PMC - PubMed
Wennerholm 2000
    1. Wennerholm UB, Bergh C, Hamberger L, Lundin K, Nilsson L, Wikland M. Incidence of congenital malformations in children born after ICSI. Human Reproduction 2000;15:944‐8. - PubMed
Westergaard 2000
    1. Westergaard HB, Johansen AM, Erb K, Andersen AN. Danish National IVF Registry 1994 and 1995. Treatment, pregnancy outcome and complications during pregnancy. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2000;79:384‐9. - PubMed
Yaron 1997
    1. Yaron Y, Amit A, Kogosowski A, Peyser MR, David MP, Lessing JB. The optimal number of embryos to be transferred in shared oocyte donation: walking the thin line between low pregnancy rates and multiple pregnancies. Human Reproduction 1997;12:699‐702. - PubMed

Publication types