Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28347334›Full record

ReviewJournal of ovarian research2017

Is the hypothesis of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) still supportable? A review.

Norbert Gleicher, Raoul Orvieto

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of ovarian research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
24.0field-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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 122 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. PGT-A: who and when? Α systematic review and network meta-analysis of RCTs.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Genomic aspects in reproductive medicine.Clinical and experimental reproductive medicine · 2024
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. The effects of embryo splitting onIranian journal of veterinary research · 2022
    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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Norbert GleicherThe Center for Human Reproduction, New York, NY, 10021, USA. ngleicher@thechr.com.
Raoul OrvietoInfertility and IVF Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sheba Medical Center (Tel Hashomer), Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Center for Human Reproduction · USSheba Medical Center · IL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The hypothesis of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGS) was first proposed 20 years ago, suggesting that elimination of aneuploid embryos prior to transfer will improve implantation rates of remaining embryos during in vitro fertilization (IVF), increase pregnancy and live birth rates and reduce miscarriages. The aforementioned improved outcome was based on 5 essential assumptions: (i) Most IVF cycles fail because of aneuploid embryos. (ii) Their elimination prior to embryo transfer will improve IVF outcomes. (iii) A single trophectoderm biopsy (TEB) at blastocyst stage is representative of the whole TE. (iv) TE ploidy reliably represents the inner cell mass (ICM). (v) Ploidy does not change (i.e., self-correct) downstream from blastocyst stage. We aim to offer a review of the aforementioned assumptions and challenge the general hypothesis of PGS. We reviewed 455 publications, which as of January 20, 2017 were listed in PubMed under the search phrase < preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) for aneuploidy>. The literature review was performed by both authors who agreed on the final 55 references. Various reports over the last 18 months have raised significant questions not only about the basic clinical utility of PGS but the biological underpinnings of the hypothesis, the technical ability of a single trophectoderm (TE) biopsy to accurately assess an embryo's ploidy, and suggested that PGS actually negatively affects IVF outcomes while not affecting miscarriage rates. Moreover, due to high rates of false positive diagnoses as a consequence of high mosaicism rates in TE, PGS leads to the discarding of large numbers of normal embryos with potential for normal euploid pregnancies if transferred rather than disposed of. We found all 5 basic assumptions underlying the hypothesis of PGS to be unsupported: (i) The association of embryo aneuploidy with IVF failure has to be reevaluated in view how much more common TE mosaicism is than has until recently been appreciated. (ii) Reliable elimination of presumed aneuploid embryos prior to embryo transfer appears unrealistic. (iii) Mathematical models demonstrate that a single TEB cannot provide reliable information about the whole TE. (iv) TE does not reliably reflect the ICM. (v) Embryos, likely, still have strong innate ability to self-correct downstream from blastocyst stage, with ICM doing so better than TE. The hypothesis of PGS, therefore, no longer appears supportable. With all 5 basic assumptions underlying the hypothesis of PGS demonstrated to have been mistaken, the hypothesis of PGS, itself, appears to be discredited. Clinical use of PGS for the purpose of IVF outcome improvements should, therefore, going forward be restricted to research studies.

Indexed as

Fertilization in VitroGenetic TestingPreimplantation DiagnosisAneuploidyBiopsyBlastocystEmbryo ImplantationFemaleHumansMosaicismPregnancyPregnancy RatePrognosisReproducibility of ResultsBlastocystCGHIVFLive birth rateMosacismNGSPGSPregnancy rate

Identifiers

PMID28347334
PMCPMC5368937
OpenAlexW2602139315

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.