ReviewReproductive medicine and biology2016
Preimplantation genetic diagnosis/screening by comprehensive molecular testing.
Review in Reproductive medicine and biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Anti-Adhesive Podocalyxin Expression Is Disrupted in Recurrent Implantation Failure.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Application and Prospects of Long-Read Sequencers for Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Structural Rearrangements.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025Review
- Preimplantation genetic testing using comprehensive genomic copy number analysis is beneficial for balanced translocation carriers.Journal of human genetics · 2024Article
- Does ICSI for in vitro fertilization cause more aneuploid embryos?Molecular cytogenetics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although embryo screening by preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) has become the standard technique for the treatment of recurrent pregnancy loss in couples with a balanced gross chromosomal rearrangement, the implantation and pregnancy rates of PGD using conventional fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) remain suboptimal. Comprehensive molecular testing, such as array comparative genomic hybridization and next-generation sequencing, can improve these rates, but amplification bias in the whole genome amplification method remains an obstacle to accurate diagnosis. Recent advances in amplification procedures combined with improvements in the microarray platform and analytical method have overcome the amplification bias, and the data accuracy of the comprehensive PGD method has reached the level of clinical laboratory testing. Currently, comprehensive PGD is also applied to recurrent pregnancy loss due to recurrent fetal aneuploidy or infertility with recurrent implantation failure, known as preimplantation genetic screening. However, there are still numerous problems to be solved, including misdiagnosis due to somatic mosaicism, cell cycle-related background noise, and difficulty in diagnosis of polyploidy. The technology for comprehensive PGD also requires further improvement.
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.