Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36637586›Full record

ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2023

Assuring quality in assisted reproduction laboratories: assessing the performance of ART Compass - a digital art staff management platform.

Carol Lynn Curchoe, Charles Bormann, Elizabeth Hammond, Scarlett Salter, Claire Timlin, Lesley Blankenship Williams, Daniella Gilboa, Daniel Seidman, Alison Campbell, Dean Morbeck

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. A review of artificial intelligence applications in in vitro fertilization.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025
    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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Carol Lynn CurchoeFertility Guidance Technologies, Newport Beach, CA, USA. carol@fertilityguidancetechnologies.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7534-5906
Charles BormannDivision of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Elizabeth HammondFertility Associates, Auckland, New Zealand.
Scarlett SalterCARE Fertility Network, London, UK.
Claire TimlinFertility Guidance Technologies, Newport Beach, CA, USA.
Lesley Blankenship WilliamsFertility Guidance Technologies, Newport Beach, CA, USA.
Daniella GilboaAIVF, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Daniel SeidmanAIVF, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Alison CampbellCARE Fertility Network, London, UK.
Dean MorbeckFertility Associates, Auckland, New Zealand.
Harvard University · USOvation Fertility · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeStaff management is the most cited ART/IVF laboratory inspection deficiency. Small ART/IVF clinics may be challenged to perform these activities by low staff volume; similarly, large ART/IVF networks may be challenged by high staff volume and large datasets. Here, we sought to investigate the performance of an automated, digital platform solution to manage this necessary task.

methodsThe ART Compass (ARTC) digital staff management platform was used to assess the clinical decision-making of ART laboratory staff. The survey modules presented standardized instructions to technologists and measured inter- and intra-technologist variability for subjective "clinical decision-making" type questions. Internal and external comparisons were achieved by providing technologists two answers: (1) a comparison to their own lab director and (2) to the most popular response collectively provided by all lab director level accounts. The platform is hosted on HIPAA compliant Amazon web servers, accessible via web browser and mobile applications for iOS (Apple) and Android mobile devices.

resultsHere, we investigated the performance of a digital staff management platform for single embryologist IVF practices and for three IVF lab networks (sites A, B, C) from 2020 to 2022. Embryology dish preparation survey results show variance among respondents in the following: PPE use, media volume, timing of oil overlay, and timing of moving prepared dishes to incubators. Surveying the perceived Gardner score and terms in use for early blastocysts reveals a lack of standardization of terminology and fair to poor agreement. We observed moderate inter-technologist agreement for ICM and TE grade (0.47 and 0.52, respectively). Lastly, the clinical decision of choice to freeze or discard an embryo revealed that agreement to freeze was highest for the top-quality embryos, and that some embryos can be highly contested, evenly split between choice to freeze or discard.

conclusionsWe conclude that a digital platform is a novel and effective tool to automate, routinely monitor, and assure quality for staff-related parameters in ART and IVF laboratories. Use of a digital platform can increase regulatory compliance and provide actionable insight for quality assurance in both single embryologist practices and for large networks. Furthermore, clinical decision-making can be augmented with artificial intelligence integration.

Indexed as

Fertilization in VitroLaboratoriesArtificial IntelligenceBlastocystEmbryo ImplantationHumansReproductionAndrologyAssessmentBlastocyst developmentClinical decision-makingCompetencyEmbryologyEmbryo qualityEmbryo viabilityLaboratory quality management systemsLQMSProficiencyQuality assuranceStandardizationTraining

Identifiers

PMID36637586
PMCPMC9935773
OpenAlexW4315798397

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.