Transfer of thawed frozen embryo versus fresh embryo to improve the healthy baby rate in women undergoing IVF: the E-Freeze RCT.

BACKGROUND: Freezing all embryos, followed by thawing and transferring them into the uterine cavity at a later stage (freeze-all), instead of fresh-embryo transfer may lead to improved pregnancy rates and fewer complications during in vitro fertilisation and pregnancies resulting from it. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate if a policy of freeze-all results in a higher healthy baby rate than the current policy of transferring fresh embryos. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm, parallel-group, non-blinded, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Eighteen in vitro fertilisation clinics across the UK participated from February 2016 to April 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Couples undergoing their first, second or third cycle of in vitro fertilisation treatment in which the female partner was aged < 42 years. INTERVENTIONS: If at least three good-quality embryos were present on day 3 of embryo development, couples were randomly allocated to either freeze-all (intervention) or fresh-embryo transfer (control). OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was a healthy baby, defined as a live, singleton baby born at term, with an appropriate weight for their gestation. Secondary outcomes included ovarian hyperstimulation, live birth and clinical pregnancy rates, complications of pregnancy and childbirth, health economic outcome, and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory scores. RESULTS: A total of 1578 couples were consented and 619 couples were randomised. Most non-randomisations were because of the non-availability of at least three good-quality embryos (n = 476). Of the couples randomised, 117 (19%) did not adhere to the allocated intervention. The rate of non-adherence was higher in the freeze-all arm, with the leading reason being patient choice. The intention-to-treat analysis showed a healthy baby rate of 20.3% in the freeze-all arm and 24.4% in the fresh-embryo transfer arm (risk ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.62 to 1.15). Similar results were obtained using complier-average causal effect analysis (risk ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.10), per-protocol analysis (risk ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 1.26) and as-treated analysis (risk ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.64 to 1.29). The risk of ovarian hyperstimulation was 3.6% in the freeze-all arm and 8.1% in the fresh-embryo transfer arm (risk ratio 0.44, 99% confidence interval 0.15 to 1.30). There were no statistically significant differences between the freeze-all and the fresh-embryo transfer arms in the live birth rates (28.3% vs. 34.3%; risk ratio 0.83, 99% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.06) and clinical pregnancy rates (33.9% vs. 40.1%; risk ratio 0.85, 99% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.11). There was no statistically significant difference in anxiety scores for male participants (mean difference 0.1, 99% confidence interval -2.4 to 2.6) and female participants (mean difference 0.0, 99% confidence interval -2.2 to 2.2) between the arms. The economic analysis showed that freeze-all had a low probability of being cost-effective in terms of the incremental cost per healthy baby and incremental cost per live birth. LIMITATIONS: We were unable to reach the original planned sample size of 1086 and the rate of non-adherence to the allocated intervention was much higher than expected. CONCLUSION: When efficacy, safety and costs are considered, freeze-all is not better than fresh-embryo transfer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN61225414. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 25. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

During in vitro fertilisation, eggs and sperm are mixed in a laboratory to create embryos. An embryo is placed in the womb 2­5 days later (fresh-embryo transfer) and the remaining embryos are frozen for future use. Initial research suggested that freezing all embryos followed by thawing and replacing them a few weeks later could improve treatment safety and success. Although these data were promising, the data came from small studies and were not enough to change practice and policy. We conducted a large, multicentre, clinical trial to evaluate the two strategies: fresh-embryo transfer compared with later transfer of frozen embryos. We also compared the costs of both strategies during in vitro fertilisation treatment, pregnancy and delivery. This study was conducted across 18 clinics in the UK from 2016 to 2019, and 619 couples participated. Couples were allocated to one of two strategies: immediate fresh-embryo transfer or freezing of all embryos followed later by transfer of frozen embryo. The study's aim was to find out which type of embryo transfer gave participants a higher chance of having a healthy baby. We found that freezing all embryos followed by frozen-embryo transfer did not lead to a higher chance of having a healthy baby. There were no differences between strategies in the number of live births, the miscarriage rate or the number of pregnancy complications. Fresh-embryo transfer was less costly from both a health-care and a patient perspective. A routine strategy of freezing all embryos is not justified given that there was no increase in success rates but there were extra costs and delays to embryo transfer.

Elective freezing of embryos versus fresh embryo transfer in IVF: a multicentre randomized controlled trial in the UK (E-Freeze).

STUDY QUESTION: Does a policy of elective freezing of embryos, followed by frozen embryo transfer result in a higher healthy baby rate, after first embryo transfer, when compared with the current policy of transferring fresh embryos? SUMMARY ANSWER: This study, although limited by sample size, provides no evidence to support the adoption of a routine policy of elective freeze in preference to fresh embryo transfer in order to improve IVF effectiveness in obtaining a healthy baby. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The policy of freezing all embryos followed by frozen embryo transfer is associated with a higher live birth rate for high responders but a similar/lower live birth after first embryo transfer and cumulative live birth rate for normal responders. Frozen embryo transfer is associated with a lower risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), preterm delivery and low birthweight babies but a higher risk of large babies and pre-eclampsia. There is also uncertainty about long-term outcomes, hence shifting to a policy of elective freezing for all remains controversial given the delay in treatment and extra costs involved in freezing all embryos. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A pragmatic two-arm parallel randomized controlled trial (E-Freeze) was conducted across 18 clinics in the UK from 2016 to 2019. A total of 619 couples were randomized (309 to elective freeze/310 to fresh). The primary outcome was a healthy baby after first embryo transfer (term, singleton live birth with appropriate weight for gestation); secondary outcomes included OHSS, live birth, clinical pregnancy, pregnancy complications and cost-effectiveness. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Couples undergoing their first, second or third cycle of IVF/ICSI treatment, with at least three good quality embryos on Day 3 where the female partner was ≥18 and <42 years of age were eligible. Those using donor gametes, undergoing preimplantation genetic testing or planning to freeze all their embryos were excluded. IVF/ICSI treatment was carried out according to local protocols. Women were followed up for pregnancy outcome after first embryo transfer following randomization. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Of the 619 couples randomized, 307 and 309 couples in the elective freeze and fresh transfer arms, respectively, were included in the primary analysis. There was no evidence of a statistically significant difference in outcomes in the elective freeze group compared to the fresh embryo transfer group: healthy baby rate {20.3% (62/307) versus 24.4% (75/309); risk ratio (RR), 95% CI: 0.84, 0.62 to 1.15}; OHSS (3.6% versus 8.1%; RR, 99% CI: 0.44, 0.15 to 1.30); live birth rate (28.3% versus 34.3%; RR, 99% CI 0.83, 0.65 to 1.06); and miscarriage (14.3% versus 12.9%; RR, 99% CI: 1.09, 0.72 to 1.66). Adherence to allocation was poor in the elective freeze group. The elective freeze approach was more costly and was unlikely to be cost-effective in a UK National Health Service context. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We have only reported on first embryo transfer after randomization; data on the cumulative live birth rate requires further follow-up. Planned target sample size was not obtained and the non-adherence to allocation rate was high among couples in the elective freeze arm owing to patient preference for fresh embryo transfer, but an analysis which took non-adherence into account showed similar results. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Results from the E-Freeze trial do not lend support to the policy of electively freezing all for everyone, taking both efficacy, safety and costs considerations into account. This method should only be adopted if there is a definite clinical indication. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme (13/115/82). This research was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (NIHR unique award identifier) using UK aid from the UK Government to support global health research. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the UK Department of Health and Social Care. J.L.B., C.C., E.J., P.H., J.J.K., L.L. and G.S. report receipt of funding from NIHR, during the conduct of the study. J.L.B., E.J., P.H., K.S. and L.L. report receipt of funding from NIHR, during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work. A.M. reports grants from NIHR personal fees from Merck Serono, personal fees for lectures from Merck Serono, Ferring and Cooks outside the submitted work; travel/meeting support from Ferring and Pharmasure and participation in a Ferring advisory board. S.B. reports receipt of royalties and licenses from Cambridge University Press, a board membership role for NHS Grampian and other financial or non-financial interests related to his roles as Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and Editor and Contributing Author of Reproductive Medicine for the MRCOG, Cambridge University Press. D.B. reports grants from NIHR, during the conduct of the study; grants from European Commission, grants from Diabetes UK, grants from NIHR, grants from ESHRE, grants from MRC, outside the submitted work. Y.C. reports speaker fees from Merck Serono, and advisory board role for Merck Serono and shares in Complete Fertility. P.H. reports membership of the HTA Commissioning Committee. E.J. reports membership of the NHS England and NIHR Partnership Programme, membership of five Data Monitoring Committees (Chair of two), membership of six Trial Steering Committees (Chair of four), membership of the Northern Ireland Clinical Trials Unit Advisory Group and Chair of the board of Oxford Brain Health Clinical Trials Unit. R.M. reports consulting fees from Gedeon Richter, honorarium from Merck, support fees for attendance at educational events and conferences for Merck, Ferring, Bessins and Gedeon Richter, payments for participation on a Merck Safety or Advisory Board, Chair of the British Fertility Society and payments for an advisory role to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. G.S. reports travel and accommodation fees for attendance at a health economic advisory board from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. N.R.-F. reports shares in Nurture Fertility. Other authors' competing interests: none declared. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN: 61225414. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 29 December 2015. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 16 February 2016.

A randomised controlled trial to assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of the endometrial scratch procedure prior to first-time IVF, with or without ICSI.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the clinical-effectiveness and safety of the endometrial scratch (ES) procedure compared to no ES, prior to usual first time in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment? SUMMARY ANSWER: ES was safe but did not improve pregnancy outcomes when performed in the mid-luteal phase prior to the first IVF cycle, with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: ES is an 'add-on' treatment that is available to women undergoing a first cycle of IVF, with or without ICSI, despite a lack of evidence to support its use. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This pragmatic, superiority, open-label, multi-centre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial involving 1048 women assessed the clinical effectiveness and safety of the ES procedure prior to first time IVF, with or without ICSI, between July 2016 and October 2019. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Participants aged 18-37 years undergoing their first cycle of IVF, with or without ICSI, were recruited from 16 UK fertility clinics and randomised (1:1) by a web-based system with restricted access rights that concealed allocation. Stratified block randomisation was used to allocate participants to TAU or ES in the mid-luteal phase followed by usual IVF with or without ICSI treatment. The primary outcome was live birth after completing 24 weeks gestation within 10.5 months of egg collection. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In total, 1048 women randomised to TAU (n = 525) and ES (n = 523) were available for intention to treat analysis. In the ES group, 453 (86.6%) received the ES procedure. IVF, with or without ICSI, was received in 494 (94.1%) and 497 (95.0%) of ES and TAU participants respectively. Live birth rate was 37.1% (195/525) in the TAU and 38.6% (202/523) in the ES: an unadjusted absolute difference of 1.5% (95% CI -4.4% to 7.4%, P = 0.621). There were no statistical differences in secondary outcomes. Adverse events were comparable across groups. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: A sham ES procedure was not undertaken in the control group, however, we do not believe this would have influenced the results as objective fertility outcomes were used. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This is the largest trial that is adequately powered to assess the impact of ES on women undergoing their first cycle of IVF. ES was safe, but did not significantly improve pregnancy outcomes when performed in the mid-luteal phase prior to the first IVF or ICSI cycle. We recommend that ES is not undertaken in this population. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Funded by the National Institute of Health Research. Stephen Walters is an National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Senior Investigator (2018 to present) and was a member of the following during the project: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Clinical Trials and Evaluation Committee (2011-2017), NIHR HTA Commissioning Strategy Group (2012 to 2017); NIHR Programme Grants for Applied Research Committee (2020 to present); NIHR Pre doctoral Fellowship Committee (2019 to present). Dr. Martins da Silva reports grants from AstraZeneca, during the conduct of the study; and is Associate editor of Human Reproduction and Editorial Board member of Reproduction and Fertility. Dr. Bhide reports grants from Bart's Charity and grants and non-financial support from Pharmasure Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN number: ISRCTN23800982. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 31 May 2016. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 04 July 2016.

Time-lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction.

BACKGROUND: Embryo incubation and assessment is a vital step in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Traditionally, embryo assessment has been achieved by removing embryos from a conventional incubator daily for quality assessment by an embryologist, under a microscope. In recent years time-lapse systems (TLS) have been developed which can take digital images of embryos at frequent time intervals. This allows embryologists, with or without the assistance of embryo selection software, to assess the quality of the embryos without physically removing them from the incubator.The potential advantages of a TLS include the ability to maintain a stable culture environment, therefore limiting the exposure of embryos to changes in gas composition, temperature, and movement. A TLS has the potential advantage of improving embryo selection for ART treatment by utilising additional information gained through continuously monitoring embryo development. Use of a TLS often adds significant extra cost to ART treatment. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of a TLS compared to conventional embryo incubation and assessment on clinical outcomes in couples undergoing ART. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard methodology recommended by Cochrane. We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and two trials registers on 7 January 2019 and checked references of appropriate papers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TLS, with or without embryo selection software, versus conventional incubation with morphological assessment; and TLS with embryo selection software versus TLS without embryo selection software among couples undergoing ART. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes were live birth or ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage and stillbirth, and cumulative live birth or ongoing pregnancy rate. The secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy and cumulative clinical pregnancy. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE methodology. We made the following comparisons.TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images versus conventional incubation and assessmentTLS utilising embryo selection software versus TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images TLS utilising embryo selection software versus conventional incubation and assessment MAIN RESULTS: We included nine RCTs (N = 2955 infertile couples). The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to low. The main limitations were high risk of bias in the included studies, imprecision, indirectness, and inconsistency. There were no data on cumulative live birth or ongoing pregnancy rate or cumulative clinical pregnancy rate.TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images versus conventional incubation and assessmentIt is unclear whether there is any difference between interventions in rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (odds ratio (OR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.23, 3 RCTs, N = 826, I2 = 33%, low-quality evidence) or in miscarriage rates (OR 1.90, 95% CI 0.99 to 3.61, 3 RCTs, N = 826, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the rate of live birth or ongoing pregnancy associated with conventional incubation and assessment is 35%, the rate with the use of TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images would be between 27% and 40%, and if the miscarriage rate with conventional incubation is 4%, the rate associated with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images would be between 4% and 14%. It is unclear whether there is a difference between the interventions in rates of stillbirth (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 7.49, 1 RCT, N = 76, low-quality evidence) or clinical pregnancy (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.41, 4 RCTs, N = 875, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence).TLS utilising embryo selection software versus TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS imagesAll findings for this comparison were very uncertain due to the very low-quality of the evidence. No data were available on live birth, but one RCT reported ongoing pregnancy. It is unclear whether there is any difference between the interventions in rates of ongoing pregnancy (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.20, 1 RCT, N = 163); miscarriage (OR 1.39, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.01, 2 RCTs, N = 463, I2 = 0%); or clinical pregnancy (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.42, 2 RCTs, N = 463, I2 = 0%). The evidence suggests that if the rate of ongoing pregnancy associated with TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images is 47%, the rate associated with TLS utilising embryo selection software would be between 22% and 52%, and if the miscarriage rate associated with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images is 5%, the rate associated with TLS utilising embryo selection software would be between 4% and 15%. No studies reported stillbirth.TLS utilising embryo selection software versus conventional incubation and assessmentThe findings for this comparison were also very uncertain due to the very low quality of the evidence. It is unclear whether there is any difference between the interventions in rates of live birth (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.36, 3 RCTs, N = 1617, I2 = 84%). There was very low-quality evidence that TLS might reduce miscarriage rates (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.89, 3 RCTs, N = 1617, I2 = 0%). It is unclear whether there is any difference between the interventions in rates of clinical pregnancy (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.16, 3 RCTs, N = 1617, I2 = 89%). The evidence suggests that if the rate of live birth associated with conventional incubation and assessment is 48%, the rate with TLS utilising embryo selection software would be between 46% and 55%, and if the miscarriage rate with conventional incubation and assessment is 11%, the rate associated with TLS would be between 5% and 10%. No stillbirths occurred in the only study reporting this outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient good-quality evidence of differences in live birth or ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage and stillbirth, or clinical pregnancy to choose between TLS, with or without embryo selection software, and conventional incubation. As the evidence is of low or very low-quality, our findings should be interpreted with caution.

Time-lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction.

BACKGROUND: Embryo incubation and assessment is a vital step in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Traditionally, embryo assessment has been achieved by removing embryos from a conventional incubator daily for quality assessment by an embryologist, under a light microscope. Over recent years time-lapse systems have been developed which can take digital images of embryos at frequent time intervals. This allows embryologists, with or without the assistance of embryo selection software, to assess the quality of the embryos without physically removing them from the incubator.The potential advantages of a time-lapse system (TLS) include the ability to maintain a stable culture environment, therefore limiting the exposure of embryos to changes in gas composition, temperature and movement. A TLS has the potential advantage of improving embryo selection for ART treatment by utilising additional information gained through continuously monitoring embryo development. Use of a TLS often adds significant extra cost onto an in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycle. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of a TLS compared to conventional embryo incubation and assessment on clinical outcomes in couples undergoing ART. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard methodology recommended by Cochrane. We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers on 2 August 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the following comparisons: comparing a TLS, with or without embryo selection software, versus conventional incubation with morphological assessment; and TLS with embryo selection software versus TLS without embryo selection software among couples undergoing ART. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes were live birth, miscarriage and stillbirth. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy and cumulative clinical pregnancy. We reported quality of the evidence for important outcomes using GRADE methodology. We made the following comparisons.TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images versus conventional incubation and assessmentTLS utilising embryo selection software versus TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images TLS utilising embryo selection software versus conventional incubation and assessment MAIN RESULTS: We included eight RCTs (N = 2303 women). The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations were imprecision and risk of bias associated with lack of blinding of participants and researchers, and indirectness secondary to significant heterogeneity between interventions in some studies. There were no data on cumulative clinical pregnancy.TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images versus conventional incubation and assessmentThere is no evidence of a difference between the interventions in terms of live birth rates (odds ratio (OR) 0.73, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.13, 2 RCTs, N = 440, I2 = 11% , moderate-quality evidence) and may also be no evidence of difference in miscarriage rates (OR 2.25, 95% CI 0.84 to 6.02, 2 RCTs, N = 440, I2 = 44%, low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the live birth rate associated with conventional incubation and assessment is 33%, the rate with use of TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images is between 19% and 36%; and that if the miscarriage rate with conventional incubation is 3%, the rate associated with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images would be between 3% and 18%. There is no evidence of a difference between the interventions in the stillbirth rate (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 7.49, 1 RCT, N = 76, low-quality evidence). There is no evidence of a difference between the interventions in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.33, 3 RCTs, N = 489, I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence).TLS utilising embryo selection software versus TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS imagesNo data were available on live birth or stillbirth. We are uncertain whether TLS utilising embryo selection software influences miscarriage rates (OR 1.39, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.01, 2 RCTs, N = 463, I2 = 0%, very low-quality evidence) and there may be no difference in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.42, 2 RCTs, N = 463, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the miscarriage rate associated with assessment of still TLS images is 5%, the rate with embryo selection software would be between 3% and 14%.TLS utilising embryo selection software versus conventional incubation and assessmentThere is no evidence of a difference between TLS utilising embryo selection software and conventional incubation improving live birth rates (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.54, 2 RCTs, N = 1017, I2 = 0%, very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether TLS influences miscarriage rates (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.08, 3 RCTs, N = 1351, I2 = 0%, very low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the live birth rate associated with no TLS is 38%, the rate with use of conventional incubation would be between 36% and 58%, and that if miscarriage rate with conventional incubation is 9%, the rate associated with TLS would be between 4% and 10%. No data on stillbirths were available. It was uncertain whether the intervention influenced clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.45, 3 RCTs, N = 1351, I2 = 42%, very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence of differences in live birth, miscarriage, stillbirth or clinical pregnancy to choose between TLS, with or without embryo selection software, and conventional incubation. The studies were at high risk of bias for randomisation and allocation concealment, the result should be interpreted with extreme caution.