ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2015
Trends, fads and ART!
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The impact of patient preselection on reported IVF outcomes.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2016Pooled it
- A critical appraisal of time-lapse imaging for embryo selection: where are we and where do we need to go?Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2015Pooled it
- Automation in ART: Paving the Way for the Future of Infertility Treatment.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Morphological selection techniques of gametes and embryos are of current interest to clinical practice in ART. Although intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection (IMSI), time lapse imaging morphometry (TLIM) or quantification of chromosome numbers (PGS) are potentially useful in research, they have not been shown to be of statistically predictive value and, thus, have only limited clinical usefulness. We make the point that morphological markers alone cannot predict the success of the early embryo, which depends on the correct orchestration of a myriad of physiological and biochemical activation events that progress independently of the maternal or zygotic genome. Since previous attempts to identify metabolic markers for embryo quality have failed and there is no evidence that the intrinsic nature of gametes and embryos can be improved in the laboratory, embryologists can only minimize environmental or operator induced damage while these cells are manipulated ex vivo.
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.