Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26126876›Full record

SynthesisJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2015

A critical appraisal of time-lapse imaging for embryo selection: where are we and where do we need to go?

Catherine Racowsky, Peter Kovacs, Wellington P Martins

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 40 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. The declining efficiency of IVF in the USA.Human reproduction open · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Could blastocysts derived from abnormal fertilized zygotes be used? A systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X · 2025
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Automation in ART: Paving the Way for the Future of Infertility Treatment.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2023
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Catherine RacowskyDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, ASB 1+3, Rm 082, Boston, MA, 02115, USA, cracowsky@partners.org.
Peter Kovacs
Wellington P Martins

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this study was to undertake a critical appraisal of the available evidence for the use of time-lapse imaging for embryo selection in clinical IVF.

methodsA literature search in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Central, ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform was performed to identify randomized controlled trials that investigated the effect of time-lapse embryo selection and/or the time-lapse incubation system on ongoing pregnancy rate. We then performed a systematic review and assessed the relative risks (RRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) for ongoing pregnancy rates and the risk of bias of the eligible studies.

resultsWe identified four eligible randomized studies, three of which investigated the effect of both time-lapse incubation system and selection on ongoing pregnancy rate; the pooled result revealed a benefit of this intervention (relative risk (RR) 1.20; 95 % CI 1.05-1.37). However, the evidence was judged to be of low quality due to study limitations; a beneficial effect was observed in only one study deemed to be at high risk of bias. The single study assessing the effect of only the time-lapse incubation system revealed a non-significant negative effect (RR 0.71; 95 % CI 0.49-1.03).

conclusionsThe findings from this systematic review of the current evidence do not support routine use of time-lapse technology in clinical IVF. We therefore believe that the use of time-lapse imaging for embryo selection should remain experimental and that couples should not be subject to a surcharge for having their embryos cultured in a time-lapse imaging system. Future studies evaluating this technology in well-designed trials should be performed.

Indexed as

BlastocystEmbryo Culture TechniquesFemaleFertilization in VitroHumansPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTime-Lapse Imaging

Identifiers

PMID26126876
PMCPMC4531870

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.