ArticleJBRA assisted reproduction2023
The importance of standardizing criteria for PGT-A interpretation of blastocysts analyzed by next-generation sequencing.
Article in JBRA assisted reproduction, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cytogenetic and Microarray Analysis Follow-Up of PGT-A Mosaic and Sex Discrepant Embryos During Pregnancy: Absence of Confirmation and Follow-Up Recommendations.Prenatal diagnosis · 2026Article
- Diverging guidelines and consensus statements on preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: indications and strategies reviewed.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2026Review
- Euploidy rate and reproductive outcomes in embryos biopsied at days 5, 6, 7 and 8 of development: a multicenter study.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Observational
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
objectiveTo compare the preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) results using the three most frequent criteria employed by preimplantation genetic laboratories and evaluate its impact on the number of euploid embryos available for transfer.
methodsRetrospective and descriptive study including patients who underwent PGT-A between January 2018 and December 2020. Five hundred and nine PGT-A cycles and 2,079 blastocysts were analyzed by next-generation sequencing (NGS). We re-assigned the diagnosis of all blastocysts using three different criteria: strict (mosaicism thresholds from 20% to 80%), standard (from 30% to 70%) and excluding (mosaicism is not reported). We compared the euploid, aneuploid and mosaic embryos obtained in each criteria used.
resultsWe observed PGT-A results discrepancies in 32.5% (165/509) of the cycles when the three different criteria were applied. The standard and excluding criteria showed 92 more euploid embryos (875/2,079) compared to the strict criteria (783/2,079). Evaluating the PGT-A results per cycle with the strict, standard and excluding criteria, the euploidy rates were 34.0%, 38.4% and 38.4% (p<0.001); aneuploidy rates were 59.0%, 55.8% and 61.6% (p<0.001) and mosaic rates were 7.0% and 5.8% (p<0.047), respectively. The mean number of euploid blastocysts available for transfer was 1.54±1.67 with the strict criteria, while the possibility to obtain an euploid embryo was higher if the standard or the excluding criteria were used 1.72±1.78 (p<0.001).
conclusionsThis study highlights the importance of standardizing the criteria used for the interpretation of PGT-A blastocysts. We observed significant differences on PGT-A results associated solely to the criteria used.
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.