ReviewMolecular diagnosis & therapy2021
Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Monogenic Conditions: Is Cell-Free DNA Testing the Next Step?
Review in Molecular diagnosis & therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluation of non-invasive gene detection in preimplantation embryos: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2023Pooled it
- Review
- Non Invasive Preimplantation Testing for Aneuploidies in Assisted Reproduction: A SWOT Analysis.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2025Review
- Proband-independent haplotyping based on NGS-based long-read sequencing for detecting pathogenic variant carrier status in preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic diseases.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2024Article
- Article
- The embryo non-invasive pre-implantation diagnosis era: how far are we?Animal reproduction · 2023Article
- Non-invasive evaluation of embryo quality for the selection of transferable embryos in human in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer.Clinical and experimental reproductive medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genetic assessment of an embryo via preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) represents an important reproductive option for couples wanting to try and improve success rates from in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycles, as well as reduce their risk of having a child born with a genetic condition. Currently, biopsy of the developing embryo prior to transfer allows genetic assessment of an embryo for either chromosome copy number (aneuploidy [PGT-A] or segmental rearrangement [PGT-SR]) or to avoid the transmission of a single gene condition (monogenic conditions [PGT-M]). However, this technology is invasive and commands considerable resources. Non-invasive PGT (niPGT) offers a potential alternate mode of embryonic analysis. Whilst the utility of niPGT-A has been recently explored, there has been limited consideration of niPGT-M as an option for couples at risk of passing on a single gene or chromosomal condition. This review examines the historical and current clinical context of preimplantation embryonic analysis for monogenic conditions, in addition to important considerations surrounding the origin and analysis of cell-free deoxyribose nucleic acid (cfDNA), whether it is sourced via blastocentesis or spent embryonic culture medium (SCM). Future capabilities of this testing modality will almost certainly be enhanced by integration of whole genome sequencing into everyday practice. In addition, the increased utilisation of reproductive carrier screening as part of standard reproductive healthcare will likely result in the identification of a larger high-risk population. As a result, stratification of limited and highly specialised reproductive genetic resources will be required. Prospective parents should continue to be made aware of the limitations of this technology, with prenatal confirmatory testing remaining an essential part of antenatal care in these patients. However, niPGT-M poses an important alternate testing modality for high-risk couples, particularly in the setting of embryos that cannot be biopsied for traditional PGT-M and as demand for this treatment continues to grow.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34495483What 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.