ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2020
A tale of two studies: now is no longer the best of times for preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A).
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- PGT-A: what's it for, what's wrong?Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Article
- Genomic aspects in reproductive medicine.Clinical and experimental reproductive medicine · 2024Article
- Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: helpful but not a first choice.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2023Article
- Disrupting the biological clock: Fertility benefits, egg freezing and proactive fertility management.Reproductive biomedicine & society online · 2022Article
- Carrier screening and PGT for an autosomal recessive monogenic disorder: insights from virtual trials.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2022Article
- Insights into the utility of preimplantation genetic testing from data collected by the HFEA.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2021Article
- Squaring the circle of recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL).Journal of assisted reproduction and 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
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) does not create normal embryos, but selecting a viable embryo for a fresh transfer has the potential to deliver an extra effect for live birth from a stimulated cycle by evading the attrition associated with embryo cryopreservation. Improved genetic tests are now available for selecting viable embryos; however, current embryo cryopreservation techniques also have a superior survival rate, which means it is now possible to transfer most morphologically suitable embryos from a stimulated cycle one at a time. The cumulative live birth rate from a stimulated cycle is now unlikely to be superior compared with morphological assessment alone, with any benefit likely to be associated with a reduction in the risk of miscarriage and the time to pregnancy. This communication offers a perspective on the likely benefit and disbenefit of PGT-A based on the outcome of modern-day clinical studies. Caution should be advised regarding offering PGT-A to every woman. Quantifying the likely miscarriage benefit and live birth disbenefit for an appropriate patient group may help to better inform couples who might be considering adding aneuploidy screening to their treatment cycle.
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.