Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40367147›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2025

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy after preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy.

Vanessa Bacal, Angela Li, Heather Shapiro, Urvi Rana, Rhonda Zwingerman, Lisa Avery, Alina Palermo, Eleni Philipoppolous, Crystal Chan

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Vanessa BacalDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Toronto, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6816-5616
Angela LiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Toronto, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-5896-6635
Heather ShapiroDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Toronto, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8380-3586
Urvi RanaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Henry Ford Macomb Hospital, Clinton Township, United States of America.
Rhonda ZwingermanTwig Fertility, Toronto, Canada.
Lisa AveryBiostatistics Research Unit, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
Alina PalermoMount Sinai Fertility, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Canada.
Eleni PhilipoppolousMcGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Crystal ChanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Toronto, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAneuploidy accounts for many pregnancy failures and congenital anomalies. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) is a screening test applied to embryos created from in vitro fertilization to diminish the chance of an aneuploid conception. The rate of misdiagnosis for both false aneuploidy (false positive) and false euploidy (false negative) test results is unknown. The objective of this study was to determine the rate of misclassification of both aneuploidy and euploidy after PGT-A. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central, CINAHL and WHO Clinical Trials Registry from inception until April 10, 2024. The protocol was registered in International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO CRD 42020219074). METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: We included studies that conducted either a pre-clinical validation of the genetic platform for PGT-A using a cell line, studies that compared the embryo biopsy results to those from the whole dissected embryo or its inner cell mass (WE/ICM), and studies that compared the biopsy results to prenatal or postnatal genetic testing. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND

resultsTwo independent reviewers extracted true and false positives and negatives comparing biopsy results to the reference standard (known karyotype, WE/ICM, pregnancy outcome). For preclinical studies, the main outcome was the positive and negative predictive values. Misdiagnosis rate was the outcome for pregnancy outcome studies. The electronic search yielded 6674 citations, of which 109 were included. For WE/ICM studies (n=40), PPV was 89.2% (95% CI 83.1-94.0) and NPV was 94.2% (95% CI 91.1-96.7, I2=42%) for aneuploid and euploid embryos, respectively. The PPV for mosaic embryos of either a confirmatory mosaic or aneuploid result was 52.8% (95% CI 37.9-67.5). For pregnancy outcome studies (n=43), the misdiagnosis rate after euploid embryo transfer was 0.2% (95% CI 0.0-0.7%, I2=65%). However, the rate for mosaic transfer, with a confirmatory euploid pregnancy outcome, was 21.7% (95% CI: 9.6-36.9, I2=95%).

conclusionThe accuracy of an aneuploid result from PGT-A is excellent and can be relied upon as a screening tool for embryos to avoid aneuploid pregnancies. Similarly, the misdiagnosis rate after euploid embryo transfer is less than 1%. However, there is a significant limitation in the accuracy of mosaic embryos.

Indexed as

AneuploidyGenetic TestingPreimplantation DiagnosisDiagnostic ErrorsFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleFertilization in VitroHumansPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID40367147
PMCPMC12077728

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.