ArticleSystematic reviews2025
Double versus single blastocyst biopsy and vitrification in preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) cycles: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical and neonatal outcomes.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- ESHRE recommendations on Good Practice in the IVF laboratory†.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2026Guideline
- Impact of double versus single blastocyst biopsy and vitrification on clinical and neonatal outcomes in PGT cycles: A systematic review and meta-analysis of embryo retesting.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Pooled it
- Impact of PGT Introduction on IVF Laboratory Workload: Lessons Learned from a Single-Center Experience of 5258 Biopsies over a 10-Year Period.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Search strategies for systematic reviews in reproductive medicine: a narrative review and practical guide.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Review
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
backgroundThe number of re-biopsied blastocysts is widely increasing in IVF cycles and concerns regarding retesting, which involves double biopsy and vitrification-warming, have been raised. The re-biopsy intervention seems to significantly reduce the pregnancy potential of a blastocyst but the evidence is still restricted to retrospective observational studies reporting a low number of cycles with re-biopsied embryos. Additionally, the neonatal outcomes after the transfer of re-biopsied and re-vitrified embryos are poorly documented to date.
methodsA systematic review will be conducted, using PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar to identify all relevant randomized control trials (RCTs), cohort and case-control studies published until December 2024. The participants will include women undergoing preimplantation genetic testing and single euploid frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles. The primary outcomes are live birth rate (LBR) and singleton birthweight, whereas secondary outcomes are post-warming embryo survival rate, clinical pregnancy (fetal heart pregnancies at 4.5 weeks), miscarriage rate (loss of pregnancy before the 20th week, and stillbirth), preterm birth (PB) rate, small-for-gestational age (SGA, < - 1.28 SDS (standard deviation score)), large-for-gestational age (LGA, > + 1.28 SDS), low birthweight (LBW; birthweight < 2500 g), preterm birth (gestation < 37 weeks), macrosomia (birthweight > 4000 g), pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, perinatal death, and major congenital malformations. Eligible studies will be selected according to pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Additionally, manual search will target other unpublished reports and supplementary data. At least two independent reviewers will be responsible for article screening, data extraction and bias assessment of eligible studies. A third reviewer will resolve any disagreements. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) will be used to assess the quality of the included studies. Studies that receive a score of 7 or higher on the NOS will be considered to have high methodological quality. The extracted data will be pooled and a meta-analysis will be performed. To carry out the data synthesis, a random effects meta-analysis will be conducted using the RevMan software. Heterogeneity will be evaluated by Cochran's Q test and the I DISCUSSION: The findings of this systematic review will be important to clinicians, embryologists, patients, and assisted reproductive service providers regarding the decision-making on retesting embryos for PGT in FET cycles. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024498955.
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.