Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33904009›Full record

ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2021

Utilization of preimplantation genetic testing in the USA.

Kaitlyn Roche, Catherine Racowsky, Joyce Harper

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
13.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. PGT-A: what's it for, what's wrong?Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. One size does not fit all: the personal nature of completed embryo donation.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. PGT-A: Houston, we have a problem.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Kaitlyn RocheUniversity College London EGA Institute for Women's Health, London, UK.
Catherine RacowskyHospital Foch, Suresnes, France and Brigham and Women's Hospital, MA, Boston, USA.
Joyce HarperUniversity College London EGA Institute for Women's Health, London, UK. joyce.harper@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6364-2367
Brigham and Women's Hospital · USInstitute for Reproductive Health · USUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the use of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) and live birth rates (LBR) in the USA from 2014 to 2017 and to understand how PGT is being used at a clinic and state level.

methodsThis study accessed SART data for 2014 to 2017 to determine LBR and the CDC for years 2016 and 2017 to identify PGT usage. Primary cycles included only the first embryo transfer within 1 year of an oocyte retrieval; subsequent cycles included transfers occurring after the first transfer or beyond 1 year of oocyte retrieval.

resultsIn the SART data, the number of primary PGT cycles showed a significant monotonic annual increase from 18,805 in 2014 to 54,442 in 2017 (P = 0.042) and subsequent PGT cycles in these years increased from 2946 to 14,361 (P = 0.01). There was a significant difference in primary PGT cycle use by age, where younger women had a greater percentage of PGT treatment cycles than older women. In both PGT and non-PGT cycles, the LBR per oocyte retrieval decreased significantly from 2014 to 2017 (P<0001) and younger women had a significantly higher LBR per oocyte retrieval compared to older women (P < 0.001). The CDC data revealed that in 2016, just 53 (11.4%) clinics used PGT for more than 50% of their cycles, which increased to 99 (21.4%) clinics in 2017 (P< 0.001).

conclusionsA growing number of US clinics are offering PGT to their patients. These findings support re-evaluation of the application for PGT.

Indexed as

Fertilization in VitroAdultBlastocystEmbryo TransferFemaleGenetic TestingHumansLive BirthOocyte RetrievalPregnancyPregnancy RatePreimplantation DiagnosisUnited StatesCDCPGTPGT-APreimplantation diagnosisSART

Identifiers

PMID33904009
PMCPMC8190209
OpenAlexW3157089709

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.