ArticleJBRA assisted reproduction2019
Preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic diseases: a Brazilian IVF centre experience.
Article in JBRA assisted reproduction, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- IVF success rates in individuals accessing preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic conditions (PGT-M): a single centre retrospective cohort study of 572 IVF cycles.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Article
- Ovarian response in preimplantation genetic testing for myotonic dystrophy type 1.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Observational
- A clinical predictive model for live birth in women of advanced age undergoing PGT cycles.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Article
- Classification of osteogenesis imperfecta: Importance for prophylaxis and genetic counseling.World journal of clinical cases · 2023Review
- Reproductive options for families at risk of Osteogenesis Imperfecta: a review.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2020Review
- Genetic and preimplantation diagnosis of cystic kidney disease with ventriculomegaly.Journal of human genetics · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe the cases of preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic diseases (PGT-M) in fertile couples who had undergone intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles in a Brazilian
methodsThis retrospective collection included data obtained from ICSI-PGT-M cycles between 2011 and 2016. The disease indication, number of biopsied embryos, biopsy stage, diagnosed and affected embryos, and cycles with embryo to transfer as well as implantation, pregnancy and miscarriage rates were analysed and compared to cycles without genetic diagnosis (PGT) and with ESHRE PGD Consortium collection XIV-XV.
resultsFrom 5,070 cycles performed, 72 had indications for PGT-M. The most common time for biopsy was cleavage-stage; 93% of the embryos had a diagnostic result, 59.4% of which were genetically transferable, resulting in 68% of the cycles with transferred embryos, a 22.1% implantation rate, and a 28.6% pregnancy rate. No differences in clinical outcomes of cycles with PGT-M or without PGT were observed. The day of biopsy and diagnostic success as well as implantation, pregnancy and miscarriage rates were similar to ESHRE collection.
conclusionsAlthough the proportion of cases with PGT-M was low, its efficacy was similar to what was reported in the European collection and represents a viable alternative for families at risk of transmitting a genetic disorder to their offspring. The main difference between our and ESHRE collection were the disease indications, which reflected the admixed, multi-ethnic Brazilian population.
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.