Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26470028›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2015

Can Comprehensive Chromosome Screening Technology Improve IVF/ICSI Outcomes? A Meta-Analysis.

Minghao Chen, Shiyou Wei, Junyan Hu, Song Quan

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
26.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 126 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy inInternational journal of fertility & sterility · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Utilization of preimplantation genetic testing in the USA.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2021
    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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Minghao ChenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Reproductive Centre, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Shiyou WeiThoracic Department, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Junyan HuEmergency Department, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Song QuanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Reproductive Centre, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Southern Medical University · CNGuangzhou Medical University · CNSichuan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine whether comprehensive chromosome screening (CCS) for preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) has an effect on improving in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) outcomes compared to traditional morphological methods.

methodsA literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, CNKI and ClinicalTrials.gov up to May 2015. Two reviewers independently evaluated titles and abstracts, extracted data and assessed quality. We included studies that compared the IVF/ICSI outcomes of CCS-based embryo selection with those of the traditional morphological method. Relative risk (RR) values with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated in RevMan 5.3, and subgroup analysis and Begg's test were used to assess heterogeneity and potential publication bias, respectively.

resultsFour RCTs and seven cohort studies were included. A meta-analysis of the outcomes showed that compared to morphological criteria, euploid embryos identified by CCS were more likely to be successfully implanted (RCT RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.18-1.47; cohort study RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.35-2.24). CCS-based PGS was also related to an increased clinical pregnancy rate (RCT RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.83-1.93; cohort study RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.20-1.83), an increased ongoing pregnancy rate (RCT RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.64-2.66; cohort study RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.30-2.00), and an increased live birth rate (RCT RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.05-1.50; cohort study RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.85-2.13) as well as a decreased miscarriage rate (RCT RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.24-1.15; cohort study RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.21-0.46) and a decreased multiple pregnancy rate (RCT RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00-0.26; cohort study RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.07-0.51). The results of the subgroup analysis also showed a significantly increased implantation rate in the CCS group.

conclusionsThe effectiveness of CCS-based PGS is comparable to that of traditional morphological methods, with better outcomes for women receiving IVF/ICSI technology. The transfer of both trophectoderm-biopsied and blastomere-biopsied CCS-euploid embryos can improve the implantation rate.

Indexed as

Fertilization in VitroSperm Injections, IntracytoplasmicAdultChromosomes, HumanCohort StudiesFemaleGenetic TestingHumansInfant, NewbornInfertilityMalePredictive Value of TestsPregnancyPregnancy RatePreimplantation DiagnosisTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID26470028
PMCPMC4607161
OpenAlexW2324768880

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.