Observational studyHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2019
The clinicians´ dilemma with mosaicism-an insight from inner cell mass biopsies.
Observational study in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
32 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Misdiagnosis of different types of aneuploidy in preimplantation genetic testing (PGT): a systematic review and meta-analysis.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Pooled it
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy after preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy.PloS one · 2025Pooled it
- PGT-A: who and when? Α systematic review and network meta-analysis of RCTs.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2021Pooled it
- Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (abnormal number of chromosomes) in in vitro fertilisation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Preimplantation genetic testing for polygenic diseases: A novel paradigm in embryo selection.Biochemistry and biophysics reports · 2026Review
- Non-invasive preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy using cell-free DNA in blastocyst culture medium.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Article
- PGT-A: what's it for, what's wrong?Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Article
- Re-Examination of PGT-A Detected Genetic Pathology in Compartments of Human Blastocysts: A Series of 23 Cases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Evolution of Minimally Invasive and Non-Invasive Preimplantation Genetic Testing: An Overview.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Healthy Live Births after the Transfer of Mosaic Embryos: Self-Correction or PGT-A Overestimation?Genes · 2023Review
- Embryo Culture Medium Has No Impact on Mosaicism Rates: a Sibling Oocyte Study.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2023Observational
- The importance of standardizing criteria for PGT-A interpretation of blastocysts analyzed by next-generation sequencing.JBRA assisted reproduction · 2023Article
- Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy for Recurrent Pregnancy Loss and Recurrent Implantation Failure in Minimal Ovarian Stimulation Cycle for Women Aged 35-42 Years: Live Birth Rate, Developmental Follow-up of Children, and Embryo Ranking.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2023Article
- The human embryonic genome is karyotypically complex, with chromosomally abnormal cells preferentially located away from the developing fetus.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- Majority of transferred mosaic embryos developed healthy live births revealed by a preclinical study using embryonic morphology assessment and noninvasive PGT-A on cell-free DNA in blastocoel fluid.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2022Article
- Clinical re-biopsy of segmental gains-the primary source of preimplantation genetic testing false positives.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2022Article
- Associations among morphological parameters, clinical factors and euploid blastocyst formation.JBRA assisted reproduction · 2022Article
- Comparison of chromosomal status in reserved multiple displacement amplification products of embryos that resulted in miscarriages or live births: a blinded, nonselection case-control study.BMC medical genomics · 2022Article
- From contemplation to classification of chromosomal mosaicism in human preimplantation embryos.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2021Review
- Consistency between chromosomal status analysis of biopsied human blastocyst trophectoderm cells and whole blastocyst cells.Reproductive medicine and biology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
study questionHow reliable are cleavage stage and trophectoderm (TE) biopsies compared to inner cell mass (ICM) biopsies? SUMMARY ANSWER: The reliability of TE biopsy compared to ICM biopsy is almost perfect, but only substantial between cleavage stage biopsy and ICM biopsy. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: One of the prevailing reasons for implantation failure is presumed to be chromosomal aneuploidy in human preimplantation embryos. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A) has been introduced into assisted reproduction in an effort to increase pregnancy rates. Increasing evidence indicates that genetic results obtained following blastomere or TEbiopsy may not accurately reflect the true genetic status of the embryo due to the presence of embryonic mosaicism, and therefore the reliability of PGT is highly controversial. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This was an observational descriptive study, performed in a private infertility centre from August 2016 to January 2017. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,
methodsThe mean female age was 33.9 years, ranging from 24 to 46 years, and the mean number of biopsied embryos per couple was 2.2 (range 1-7 embryos). Blastomere biopsies had been performed at cleavage stage on Day 3 (D3) due to the turnover time of genetic testing and the inability to cryopreserve embryos in accordance with the local law governing ART. To confirm the genetic results in embryos not chosen for transfer, additional biopsies of the TE at blastocyst stage (BLASTO-TE) as well as of the ICM (BLASTO-ICM) were performed on D5. Only surplus blastocysts, which had not been selected for transfer and were not cryopreserved in accordance with the law governing ART, had been included. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Comparison of all biopsies (D3/BLASTO-ICM/BLASTO-TE) per embryo demonstrated that 50 (59.5%) out of 84 embryos showed concordance in all three results (= full concordance). Thirty-four (40.4%) embryos had at least two discordant results between the three biopsies, regardless of whether the embryo diagnosis (aneuploid/euploid) was discordant or not, or in aneuploid embryos, whether the chromosomal patterns were inconsistent. Nine (= 10.7%) embryos had complete discordance between all three biopsies. False positive results between D3/BLASTO-TE, D3/BLASTO-ICM and BLASTO-TE/BLASTO-ICM were 26.4%/30.2% and 7.5%, respectively, while the Kappa agreement between the different approaches was 0.647, 0.553 and 0.857, respectively. Therefore the reliability of D3/BLASTO-TE, D3/BLASTO-ICM and BLASTO-TE/BLASTO-ICM can be interpreted as substantial, as moderate and as almost perfect. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The limitation of this study is the possible bias in the concordance/discordance rate because embryos that had been selected for transfer did not undergo biopsy on D5. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE
findingsThe obvious discordance between the three different approaches for PGT-A underlines the limitations of genetic testing and highlights the importance of ongoing research in order to improve the accuracy of PGT-A results. Until then reproductive specialists will continue to make challenging decisions on whether to transfer or discard an embryo in light of current evidence questioning the reliability of genetic results. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was supported by Igenomix. The funder provided support in the form of salary for R.C. The co-author R.C. is an employee of Igenomix. She participated in the blinded analysis of the samples; however the final data collection and statistical analysis of the results, as well as the decision to publish, was taken by B.L, I.E. and H.F. The authors B.L., I.E., A.L., A.B., A.A., N.D. and H.F. have no competing interests. The funder did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript. The commercial affiliation of R.C. did not play any role in the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of IVIRMA Middle East Fertility Clinic, Abu Dhabi, UAE (Research Ethics Committee IVI-MEREFA009a/2017).
Indexed as
Identifiers
31114858What 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.