Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34223252›Full record

ArticleF&S reports2020

In vitro fertilization outcomes after preimplantation genetic testing for chromosomal structural rearrangements comparing fluorescence in-situ hybridization, microarray comparative genomic hybridization, and next-generation sequencing.

Chantal B Bartels, Reeva Makhijani, Prachi Godiwala, Alison Bartolucci, John C Nulsen, Daniel R Grow, Lawrence Engmann, Claudio A Benadiva

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in F&S reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. In vitro fertilization as an option for couples with genetic disorders.Clinical and experimental reproductive medicine · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Chantal B BartelsCenter for Advanced Reproductive Services, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut.
Reeva MakhijaniCenter for Advanced Reproductive Services, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut.
Prachi GodiwalaCenter for Advanced Reproductive Services, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut.
Alison BartolucciCenter for Advanced Reproductive Services, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut.
John C NulsenCenter for Advanced Reproductive Services, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut.
Daniel R GrowCenter for Advanced Reproductive Services, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut.
Lawrence EngmannCenter for Advanced Reproductive Services, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut.
Claudio A BenadivaCenter for Advanced Reproductive Services, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut.
UConn Health · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes for preimplantation genetic testing for chromosomal structural rearrangements (PGT-SR) using various testing platforms.

designRetrospective cohort.

settingLarge academic IVF center. PATIENTS: Fifty-one balanced translocation carriers undergoing IVF with PGT-SR who completed a total of 91 cycles, including 31 fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH), 24 microarray comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH), and 36 next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing cycles.

interventionsPGT-SR.

main outcome measuresPrimary outcome of live-birth rate and secondary outcomes including implantation rate, clinical loss rate, and percentages of normal or balanced, unbalanced, and aneuploid embryos detected.

resultsThere was no statistically significant difference in LBR, though there was a tendency toward a higher LBR for NGS testing (14 of 19, 73.7%) compared with FISH (8 of 18, 44.4%) and aCGH (10 of 20, 50.0%). The implantation rate was statistically significantly higher for NGS (16 of 20, 80.0%) compared with FISH (11 of 25, 44.0%) and aCGH (16 of 30, 53.3%). There was no statistically significant difference in clinical pregnancy losses. There was a lower percentage of normal or balanced embryos with FISH (12.5%) compared with aCGH (23.7%) and with NGS (20.7%).

conclusionsThis is the first report of PGT-SR outcomes for translocation carriers directly comparing PGT-SR using FISH, aCGH, and NGS. Our findings suggest an improvement in pregnancy outcomes parallel to the advancement in technology and are reassuring for continued use of NGS for this population.

Indexed as

Chromosomal translocationnext generation sequencingpreimplantation genetic testing for structural rearrangementsreciprocal translocationRobertsonian translocation

Identifiers

PMID34223252
PMCPMC8244371
OpenAlexW3089056346

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.