Reporting of embryo transfer methods in IVF research: a cross-sectional study

- Recent reports of IVF randomized trials rarely describe embryo transfer methods.
- Most commonly reported details refer to transfer catheters or ultrasound guidance.
- ET methods reporting is not commoner in more prestigious studies.
- RCTs in higher impact factor journals (IF ≥ 3) are less likely to describe ET methods.
- Methods underreporting undermines reproducibility and suitability for meta-analysis.

The reporting of embryo transfer methods in IVF research was assessed through a cross-sectional analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2010 and 2011. A systematic search identified 325 abstracts; 122 RCTs were included in the study. Embryo transfer methods were described in 42 out of 122 articles (34%). Catheters (32/42 [76%]) or ultrasound guidance (31/42 [74%]) were most frequently mentioned. Performer 'blinding' (12%) or technique standardization (7%) were seldom reported. The description of embryo transfer methods was significantly more common in trials published by journals with lower impact factor (less than 3, 39.6%; 3 or greater, 21.5%; P = 0.037). Embryo transfer methods were reported more often in trials with pregnancy as the main end-point (33% versus 16%) or with positive outcomes (37.8% versus 25.0%), albeit not significantly. Multivariate logistic regression confirmed that RCTs published in higher impact factor journals are less likely to describe embryo transfer methods (OR 0.371; 95% CI 0.143 to 0.964). Registered trials, trials conducted in an academic setting, multi-centric studies or full-length articles were not positively associated with embryo transfer methods reporting rate. Recent reports of randomized IVF trials rarely describe embryo transfer methods. The under-reporting of research methods might compromise reproducibility and suitability for meta-analysis.