ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2024
A heatmap for expected cumulative live birth rate in preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic disorders and chromosomal structural rearrangements.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2024. 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.
- Live birth rates with and without preimplantation genetic testing: a single-center retrospective study.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeOur objective is to predict the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) and identify the specific subset within the population undergoing preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic disorders (PGT-M) and chromosomal structural rearrangements (PGT-SR) which is likely to exhibit a diminished expected CLBR based on various patient demographics.
methodsWe performed a single-centre retrospective cohort study including 1522 women undergoing 3130 PGT cycles at a referral centre for PGT. A logistic regression analysis was performed to predict the CLBR per ovarian stimulation in women undergoing PGT-M by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array, and in women undergoing PGT-SR by SNP array, array comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) or next-generation sequencing (NGS).
resultsThe mean age of women was 32.6 years, with a mean AMH of 2.75 µg/L. Female age and AMH significantly affected the expected CLBR irrespective of the inheritance mode or PGT technology. An expected CLBR < 10% was reached above the age of 42 years and AMH ≤ 1.25 µg/L. We found no significant difference in outcome per ovarian stimulation between the different PGT technologies, i.e. PCR, SNP array, array CGH and NGS. Whereas per embryo transfer, we noticed a significantly higher probability of live birth when SNP array, array CGH and NGS were used as compared to PCR.
conclusionIn a PGT-setting, couples with an unfavourable female age and AMH should be informed of the prognosis to allow other reproductive choices. The heatmap produced in this study can be used as a visual tool for PGT couples.
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.