ReviewJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2012
A review of, and commentary on, the ongoing second clinical introduction of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) to routine IVF practice.
Review in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Day 5 versus day 3 embryo biopsy for preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic/single gene defects.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Pregnancy and child developmental outcomes after preimplantation genetic screening: a meta-analytic and systematic review.World journal of pediatrics : WJP · 2018Pooled it
- The impact of patient preselection on reported IVF outcomes.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2016Pooled it
- Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) still in search of a clinical application: a systematic review.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2014Pooled it
- Using the Eeva Test™ adjunctively to traditional day 3 morphology is informative for consistent embryo assessment within a panel of embryologists with diverse experience.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2015Trial
- Evaluating the application value of NGS-based PGT-A by screening cryopreserved MDA products of embryos from PGT-M cycles with known transfer outcomes.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2022Article
- Eleven healthy live births: a result of simultaneous preimplantation genetic testing of α- and β-double thalassemia and aneuploidy screening.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2020Article
- Decision-making surrounding the use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy reveals misunderstanding regarding its benefit.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2018Article
- A single trophectoderm biopsy at blastocyst stage is mathematically unable to determine embryo ploidy accurately enough for clinical use.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2017Article
- Is the hypothesis of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) still supportable? A review.Journal of ovarian research · 2017Review
- Accuracy of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) is compromised by degree of mosaicism of human embryos.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2016Article
- The why, the how and the when of PGS 2.0: current practices and expert opinions of fertility specialists, molecular biologists, and embryologists.Molecular human reproduction · 2016Review
- Effect of Embryo Banking on U.S. National Assisted Reproductive Technology Live Birth Rates.PloS one · 2016Article
- Genetic considerations in recurrent pregnancy loss.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2015Review
- Is it time for a paradigm shift in understanding embryo selection?Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2015Article
- The "graying" of infertility services: an impending revolution nobody is ready for.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2014Article
- Article
- Utilizing FMR1 gene mutations as predictors of treatment success in human in vitro fertilization.PloS one · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCurrent re-introduction of "improved" preimplantation genetic screening (PGS#2) raises the question whether PGS#2 is ready for routine clinical application.
methodsWe assessed available evidence via review of published data for years 2005-2012, and review of currently ongoing registered clinical trials, based on searches under appropriate key words in PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Database System Review and Google Scholar and http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov . In absence of prospective clinical trials, and due to limited available data, individual publications/ongoing studies are assessed.
resultsPGS#2 offers significant improvements in accuracy of aneuploidy diagnosis over PGS#1. By moving embryo biopsy from day-3 after fertilization (6-8 cell stage) to trophectoderm biopsy at blastocyst stage (day 5-6), PGS#2, however, adds additional co-variables to the analysis of efficacy of the procedure, which have special relevance for women with diminished ovarian reserve (DOR), who usually produce small egg and embryo numbers. Limited published data, claiming efficacy of PGS#2, as well as ongoing clinical trials, do not consider these additional co-variables, do not analyze outcomes by intent to treat and, therefore, have to be considered biased in patient selection.
conclusionsHere reached conclusions are based on absence of adequate data rather than affirmative outcome assessments. They, therefore, are subject to change at any future date with generation of significant new data. Premature introduction of PGS#1 caused significant damage to patients. As currently no reliable PGS#2 data are available to suggest improvements in IVF outcomes, to avoid a repeat of the PGS#1 experience, PGS#2 should be considered experimental until data show otherwise.
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.