SynthesisJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2011
PGS-FISH in reproductive medicine and perspective directions for improvement: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- MicroRNAs secreted by human embryos could be potential biomarkers for clinical outcomes of assisted reproductive technology.Journal of advanced research · 2021Article
- D-karyo-A New Prenatal Rapid Screening Test Detecting Submicroscopic CNVs and Mosaicism.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Chromosomal integrity of human preimplantation embryos at different days post fertilization.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEmbryo selection can be carried out via morphological criteria or by using genetic studies based on Preimplantation Genetic Screening. In the present study, we evaluate the clinical validity of Preimplantation Genetic Screening with fluorescence in situ hybridization (PGS-FISH) compared with morphological embryo criteria. MATERIAL AND
methodsA systematic review was made of the bibliography, with the following goals: firstly, to determine the prevalence of embryo chromosome alteration in clinical situations in which the PGS-FISH technique has been used; secondly, to calculate the statistics of diagnostic efficiency (negative Likelihood Ratio), using 2 × 2 tables, derived from PGS-FISH. The results obtained were compared with those obtained from embryo morphology. We calculated the probability of transferring at least one chromosome-normal embryo when it was selected using either morphological criteria or PGS-FISH, and considered what diagnostic performance should be expected of an embryo selection test with respect to achieving greater clinical validity than that obtained from embryo morphology.
resultsAfter an embryo morphology selection that produced a negative result (normal morphology), the likelihood of embryo aneuploidies was found to range from a pre-test value of 65% (prevalence of embryo chromosome alteration registered in all the study groups) to a post-test value of 55% (Confidence interval: 50-61), while after PGS-FISH with a negative result (euploid), the post-test probability was 42% (Confidence interval: 35-49) (p < 0.05). The probability of transferring at least one euploid embryo was the same whether 3 embryos were selected according to morphological criteria or whether 2, selected by PGS-FISH, were transferred. Any embryo selection test, if it is to provide greater clinical validity than embryo morphology, must present a LR-value of 0.40 (Confidence interval: 0.32-0.51) in single embryo transfer, and 0.06 (CI: 0.05-0.07) in double embryo transfer. DISCUSSION: With currently available technology, and taking into account the number of embryos to be transferred, the clinical validity of PGS-FISH, although superior to that of morphological criteria, does not appear to be clinically relevant.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.