ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2023
Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: helpful but not a first choice.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2023. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Greater PGT-A utilization in IVF clinics does not improve live birth rates but relates to IVF center ownership: a preliminary report.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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis retrospective cohort study aimed to assess and compare the outcomes between cumulative live birth of patients with and without PGT-A and also between prior unsuccessful IVF cycles and PGT-A cycles among patients who experienced IVF but without live birth delivery, and to clarify the effective usage of PGT-A as an in vitro fertilization (IVF) add-on.
methodsA total of 2113 females undergoing IVF with at least one blastocyst were reviewed. Patients in the PGT-A and non-PGT-A groups were further categorized into first-time IVF and prior unsuccessful IVF groups (previous IVF experience but without live birth delivery).
resultsIn the PGT-A group, there were additional oocyte retrieval cycles, fewer transfer cycles per patient, higher clinical pregnancy rates per embryo transfer, and lower miscarriage rates per clinical pregnancy as compared to the non-PGT-A group, all showing significant differences. However, the first-time IVF group with PGT-A had a significantly longer duration from the first oocyte retrieval to the first live birth delivery (LBD) and a significantly lower LBD rate per patient than the non-PGT-A group. The cumulative probability for a first LBD with PGT-A was inferior in the first-time IVF group for women < 35 years, marginally superior in the prior unsuccessful IVF group of women aged 38-40 years, and similar for other groups.
conclusionPGT-A should not be recommended to all patients; however, if the first IVF treatment failed, PGT-A may reduce the patient's burden regardless of age.
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.