ArticleJBRA assisted reproduction2020
Morphokinetic parameters as auxiliary criteria for selection of blastocysts cultivated in a time-lapse monitoring system.
Article in JBRA assisted reproduction, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Parental dietary patterns and assisted reproductive technology outcomes including embryo morphokinetics: rotterdam periconception cohort.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe embryonic profile up to blastocyst stage in a time-lapse system.
methodsA retrospective, longitudinal, analytical study of patients submitted to in vitro fertilization. The embryos were grouped according to the degree of expansion, internal cell mass and trophectoderm classification, the morphokinetic parameters were associated with the time periods stated in each evolution phase.
resultsThe appearance of a second polar corpuscle (CPap) occurred earlier in the embryos classified as excellent (2.99h; p<0.05), in relation to the embryos classified as good (3.40h), average (3.48h) and poor (3.55h). The embryos classified as excellent took less time for the pronuclei to disappear (PNbd) (21.80h; p<0.05), when compared to the good embryos (22.96h), the average (23.21h) and the poor (23.47h). As for the morphokinetic parameter, the end of the two-cell division (T2) occurred first in the excellent blastocysts (24.38h; p<0.05), when compared to the other groups: good (25.57h), average (25.53h) and poor (25.78h). With respect to synchronization with the division of three to four cells (S2), the poor embryos presented longer times for such division to occur (3.67h; p<0.05). When compared to the embryos from the groups excellent (1.97h), good (2.70h) and average (2.09h). At the time point of the blastocoel formation (TB), the excellent embryos (104.04h) did not differ from the good embryos (104.10h). However, when compared to average (107.27h) and poor (106.86h) embryos, there was statistical significance (p<0.05).
conclusionsEmbryos of better quality had a shorter time in some morphokinetic parameters when compared to the other groups, thus increasing the possibilities to establish new parameters for the classification and selection of embryos.
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.