Elective single embryo transfer (eSET) was first introduced to IVF in 1999, and its subsequent integration into mainstream reproductive endocrinology and infertility has been hugely consequential. It can be viewed as the first (among many since) ‘add-ons’ to IVF that has significantly and adversely affected how IVF is practised, resulting in astonishing declines in live birth rates after fresh non-donor IVF cycles worldwide. We propose that, like most ‘add-ons’ to IVF over recent years, the almost universal use of eSET worldwide lacks proper validation of its underlying hypothesis and is based on statistically incorrect assumptions and incorrect data interpretation. As with most recent ‘add-ons’ to IVF, eSET lacks evidentiary support, and, therefore, its remarkable success in the marketplace must be based on expert opinions, the lowest level of evidence in medicine and widely recognized as frequently biased. Like other ‘add-ons' to IVF, eSET-practice must be reassessed because it does not offer the benefits it has widely claimed to provide, prolongs time to conception and adversely affects live birth chances for many women. Moreover, by ignoring that infertile women value quick conception over most other considerations, provider-insistence on eSET frequently deprives them of the right to self-determination.

选择性单胚胎移植 (eSET) 于 1999 年首次引入体外受精，其随后与主流生殖内分泌学和不孕症的整合产生了巨大的影响。它可以被视为 IVF 的第一个（在许多之后的）“附加”，它对 IVF 的实施方式产生了重大不利影响，导致全球范围内新的非供体 IVF 周期后活产率惊人地下降。我们建议，与近年来 IVF 的大多数“附加组件”一样，全球几乎普遍使用 eSET 缺乏对其基本假设的适当验证，并且基于统计上不正确的假设和不正确的数据解释。与体外受精的最新“附加组件”一样，eSET 缺乏证据支持，因此，它在市场上的显着成功必须基于专家意见，医学中最低级别的证据，被广泛认为经常存在偏见。与 IVF 的其他“附加组件”一样，eSET 实践必须重新评估，因为它没有提供它广泛声称提供的好处、延长受孕时间并对许多女性的活产机会产生不利影响。此外，由于忽视了不孕女性重视快速受孕而不是大多数其他考虑，提供者对 eSET 的坚持经常剥夺她们的自决权。