ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2023
Is it necessary for young patients with recurrent implantation failure to undergo preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy?
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Does preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy improve live birth rate in women diagnosed with recurrent implantation failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis?Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Pooled it
- Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy optimizes reproductive outcomes in recurrent reproductive failure: a systematic review.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Mapping the evidence and research gaps on preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy in recurrent implantation failure: a scoping review.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Review
- Effectiveness of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy in improving clinical and neonatal outcomes for patients with recurrent pregnancy loss.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
- Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy Could Not Improve Cumulative Live Birth Rate Among 705 Couples with Unexplained Recurrent Implantation Failure.The application of clinical genetics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To determine whether preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) can improve the pregnancy outcomes of patients aged under 38 years who have a history of recurrent implantation failure(RIF). Design: Retrospective cohort study. Methods: We retrospectively studied the pregnancy outcomes of RIF patients aged under 38 years from January 2017 to December 2021.178 patients were divided into two groups according to whether they underwent PGT-A: the PGT-A group(n=59)and the control group(n=119).In the PGT-A group, we compared the euploidy rate of the different quality and developmental rate blastocysts. In both groups,the patients were the first frozen-thaw single blastocysts transfer after the diagnosis of RIF. Among the pregnancy outcomes, the clinical pregnancy rate was assessed as the primary outcome. The spontaneous abortion rate and ongoing pregnancy rate were the secondry outcomes. The generalized estimation equation was used to adjust for the blastocysts derived from the same patients. Multivariate logistic analysis models were used to compare the pregnancy outcomes between the two groups. Results: In the PGT-A group, 293 blastocysts obtained from59 patients underwent PGT-A. The proportions of euploidy, aneuploidy and mosaic blastocysts were 56.31%, 25.60% and 18.09%, respectively. A comparison of the euploidy rates of different quality blastocysts showed that the rate of good-quality blastocysts was significantly higher than that of poor-quality blastocysts (67.66% vs 46.88%; odds ratio [OR], 2.203; 95%confidence interval[CI], 0.943-3.612; P=0.002). However, no significant difference was observed in the different developmental rates blastocysts. Compared with Day 5 blastocysts, the euploidy rates of Day 6 and Day 7 blastocysts were not significantly different(61.54%vs51.91%; OR,0.945; 95%CI, 0.445-2.010; P=0.884; and 61.54%vs47.37%; OR, 1.106; 95%CI, 0.774-1.578; P=0.581, respectively).As for the pregnancy outcomes, the clinical pregnancy rate was significantly increase after the use of PGT-A compared with the control group(71.19%vs56.30%; OR, 0.538; 95%CI, 0.262-1.104; P=0.039). However, the spontaneous abortion rates and ongoing pregnancy rates were not significantly different between the control and PGT-A groups (21.43% vs 19.40%; aOR,0.727; 95%CI,0.271-1.945; P=0.525; and55.93% vs 45.38%; aOR, 0.649; 95%CI, 0.329-1.283; P = 0.214,respectively). Conclusion: PGT-A improved the clinical pregnancy rate after blastocyst transfer in RIF patients aged under 38 years.
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.