Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27299602›Full record

SynthesisJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2016

Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: what technology should you use and what are the differences?

Paul R Brezina, Raymond Anchan, William G Kearns

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Addressing ethical issues related to prenatal diagnostic procedures.Maternal health, neonatology and perinatology · 2023
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Genetics in human reproduction.JBRA assisted reproduction · 2020
    Review
  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.

Paul R BrezinaDepartment of OB/GYN, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA.
Raymond AnchanDepartment of OB/GYN, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
William G KearnsAdvaGenix, Rockville, MD, USA. wgkearns@AdvaGenix.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of the review was to define the various diagnostic platforms currently available to perform preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy and describe in a clear and balanced manner the various strengths and weaknesses of these technologies.

methodsA systematic literature review was conducted. We used the terms "preimplantation genetic testing," "preimplantation genetic diagnosis," "preimplantation genetic screening," "preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy," "PGD," "PGS," and "PGD-A" to search through PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar from the year 2000 to April 2016. Bibliographies of articles were also searched for relevant studies. When possible, larger randomized controlled trials were used. However, for some emerging data, only data from meeting abstracts were available.

resultsPGS is emerging as one of the most valuable tools to enhance pregnancy success with assisted reproductive technologies. While all of the current diagnostic platforms currently available have various advantages and disadvantages, some platforms, such as next-generation sequencing (NGS), are capable of evaluating far more data points than has been previously possible. The emerging complexity of different technologies, especially with the utilization of more sophisticated tools such as NGS, requires an understanding by clinicians in order to request the best test for their patients..

conclusionUltimately, the choice of which diagnostic platform is utilized should be individualized to the needs of both the clinic and the patient. Such a decision must incorporate the risk tolerance of both the patient and provider, fiscal considerations, and other factors such as the ability to counsel patients on their testing results and how these may or may not impact clinical outcomes.

Indexed as

AneuploidyBlastocystFemaleFertilization in VitroGenetic TestingHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisPolymorphism, Single NucleotidePregnancyPreimplantation DiagnosisReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionEmbryoFISH, Next Generation, NGS, CGH, SNPGenetic screeningMicroarrayPGSPreimplantationRecurrent pregnancy loss

Identifiers

PMID27299602
PMCPMC4930789

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.