ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2023
Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy helps to achieve a live birth with fewer transfer cycles for the blastocyst FET patients with unexplained recurrent implantation failure.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Mapping the evidence and research gaps on preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy in recurrent implantation failure: a scoping review.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Cumulative live birth following preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy versus conventional IVF/ICSI in unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss: a retrospective cohort study with intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Review
- Comparative analysis of cumulative live birth rates in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss undergoing preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy versus conventional in vitro fertilisation/intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a retrospective study.Journal of ovarian research · 2025Article
- ChromInst: a multicentre evaluation of robustness in aneuploidy and structural rearrangement testing.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Article
- Fresh Versus Frozen Embryo Transfer in Women with Repeated Implantation Failure.Advanced biomedical research · 2025Article
- Finding of the optimal preparation and timing of endometrium in frozen-thawed embryo transfer: a literature review of clinical evidence.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis retrospective cohort study aimed to investigate the value of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) as a screening test for patients suffering from unexplained recurrent implantation failure (RIF).
methodsAfter screening patients in one reproductive medicine center, twenty-nine, forty-nine and thirty-eight women (< 40 years old) who had suffered unexplained RIF with PGT-A, or RIF without PGT-A, or no RIF with PGT-A were included. The clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate per transfer, the conservative and optimal cumulative clinical pregnancy rates (CCPR) and live birth rates (CLBR) after three blastocyst FETs were analyzed.
resultsThe live birth rate per transfer was significantly higher in the RIF + PGT-A group than that in the RIF + NO PGT-A group (47.6% vs. 24.6%, p = 0.014). After 3 cycles of FET, RIF + PGT-A group had significantly higher conservative CLBR and optimal CLBR compared to the RIF + NO PGT-A group (69.0% vs. 32.7%, p = 0.002 and 73.7% vs. 57.5%, p = 0.016), but had similar conservative and optimal CLBRs compared to the NO RIF + PGT-A group. The number of FET cycles required when half women achieved a live birth was 1 in the PGT-A group and 3 in RIF + NO PGT-A group. The miscarriage rates were not different between the RIF + PGT-A and RIF + NO PGT-A, RIF + PGT-A and NO RIF + PGT-A groups.
conclusionPGT-A did be superior in reducing the number of transfer cycles required to achieve a similar live birth rate. Further studies to identify the RIF patients who would benefit most from PGT-A are necessary.
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.