Cumulative live birth rate of a blastocyst versus cleavage stage embryo transfer policy during in vitro fertilisation in women with a good prognosis: multicentre randomised controlled trial.

Name: Αlpha¹ Rigor Record — Cumulative live birth rate of a blastocyst versus cleavage stage embryo transfer policy during in vitro fertilisation in women with a good prognosis: multicentre randomised controlled trial.
Item: Cumulative live birth rate of a blastocyst versus cleavage stage embryo transfer policy during in vitro fertilisation in women with a good prognosis: multicentre randomised controlled trial.
Rating: 39
Author: Αlpha¹

Cornelisse S, Fleischer K, van der Westerlaken L, de Bruin JP, Vergouw C, Koks C, Derhaag J, Visser J, van Echten-Arends J, Slappendel E, Arends B, van der Zanden M, van Dongen A, Brink-van der Vlugt J, de Hundt M, Curfs M, Verhoeve H, Traas-Hofmans M, Wurth Y, Manger P, Pieterse Q, Braat D, van Wely M, Ramos L, Mastenbroek S

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review — 1★ (Critical), 6 critical, 2 high issues for “Cumulative live birth rate of a blastocyst versus cleavage stage embryo transfer policy during in vitro fertilisation in women with a good prognosis: multicentre randomised controlled trial.”

Links back to this Rigor Record.

Αlpha¹ Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Αlpha¹ Editorial · August 16, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

1 / 5

Critical — a demonstrable failure

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

StatisticsImpossible or misreported statistic ×6−6★
IntegrityIntegrity concern ×3−1.5★
StatisticsPrinted percentage does not match its own count (capped) ×16−0.25★
ReportingData & code availability partially met−0.25★

A demonstrable critical failure caps the rating at the minimum, regardless of the deductions above.

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.39.0Source: full text

Not verified in this report

The numeric-impossibility checks (GRIM/GRIMMER/DEBIT/SPRITE) did not run: 34 reported means were read, and their group size is not stated where the values are printed (this source has no machine-readable table structure). These checks need the count the mean was averaged over, so none was performed.
No data or code availability links were detected to verify.

Problems surfaced4 types

Numerical inconsistencies3

Values that contradict each other or are impossible for the stated sample: recomputed p-values and test statistics, GRIM/GRIMMER checks on summary numbers, percentages against their own counts, totals against their parts, and estimates against their own confidence intervals.

Summary statistic impossible for the stated N (GRIM/GRIMMER)Recomputed
Printed percentage does not match its own countRecomputed
Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

Reporting gaps1

Required detail the manuscript never states — study design, biological variables, ethics approval and consent, key resources, statistical reporting, data and code availability, and overall transparency.

Data/code availability incompleteAssessed

This Αlpha¹ Rigor Review uses AI Rigor Reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

Critical findings

• PERCENT: 68.2% does not match the reported count 407/603
• PERCENT: 9.2% does not match the reported count 31/350
• PERCENT: 8.8% does not match the reported count 30/350
• PERCENT: 6.2% does not match the reported count 21/350
• PERCENT: 4.7% does not match the reported count 16/350
• PERCENT: 24% does not match the reported count 81/350

This is a well-conducted and well-reported multicentre RCT comparing blastocyst versus cleavage stage embryo transfer policies. The study design is rigorous with appropriate randomization, blinding of analysts, and power analysis. The main weakness is the vague data availability statement, and there are minor copyediting issues including a potential sign inconsistency in Table 3.

Both reviewers classified the study as interventional, and this was adopted. The evaluation covered the full text, with all eight dimensions scored. The statistics verification component could only recompute a subset of tests (5 of 27) due to limited reporting; the remaining tests were not machine-verifiable and are not confirmed. The citation check found no retracted or unresolved references.

7 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: all adequately supported.

Efficacy claim is anchored to an adequate endpoint and a meaningful effect.

Recomputed 5 tests: 5 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 1 recomputed directly from the reported test statistics, 4 via agent-written checks. 6 reported summary statistics mathematically impossible for the stated N (PERCENT). 16 printed percentages that do not match their own count.

3 integrity concerns flagged (0 high).

Reporting

Eight Dimensions7 pass · 1 warn

The introduction cites systematic reviews and prior RCTs, explains the theoretical advantages of blastocyst transfer, and notes the lack of high-quality evidence on cumulative live birth rates. The rationale for the trial follows logically from the identified evidence gap. The paper acknowledges limitations of prior research, such as insufficient high-quality evidence on cumulative outcomes.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise with prior work cited, a logical rationale, and addresses limitations of prior research.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 4]

“Similarly, systematic reviews have concluded that high quality evidence on cumulative pregnancy results is currently insufficient and that well designed randomised controlled trials are needed to assess clinical value.”