Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20031957›Full record

ArticleHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2010

What next for preimplantation genetic screening? A polar body approach!

Joep Geraedts, John Collins, Luca Gianaroli, Veerle Goossens, Alan Handyside, Joyce Harper, Markus Montag, Sjoerd Repping, Andreas Schmutzler

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Preimplantation Genetic Testing: Where We Are Today.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020
    Review
  3. Preimplantation genetic screening 2.0: the theory.Molecular human reproduction · 2016
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Joep GeraedtsDepartment of Genetics and Cell Biology, Research Institute GROW, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ Maastricht, The Netherlands.
John Collins
Luca Gianaroli
Veerle Goossens
Alan Handyside
Joyce Harper
Markus Montag
Sjoerd Repping
Andreas Schmutzler

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Screening of human preimplantation embryos for numerical chromosome abnormalities has been conducted mostly at the preimplantation stage using fluorescence in situ hybridization. However, it is clear that preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) as it is currently practiced does not improve live birth rates. Therefore the ESHRE PGS Task Force has decided to start a proof of principle study with the aim of determining whether biopsy of the first and second polar body followed by subsequent analysis of the complete chromosome complement of these polar bodies using an array based technique enables a timely identification of the chromosomal status of an oocyte. If the principle of this approach can be proven, it is obvious that a multicentre randomized controlled trial should then be started to determine the clinical value of this technique. In this way the ESHRE PGS Task Force hopes to redirect preimplantation screening from the blind alley to the main road of assisted reproduction.

Indexed as

AneuploidyBiopsyFemaleGenetic TestingHumansOocytesPilot ProjectsPregnancyPreimplantation DiagnosisZygote

Identifiers

PMID20031957
PMCPMC2817568

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.