ArticleJournal of ovarian research2025
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.
Article in Journal of ovarian research, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRecurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) affects 1-2% of women worldwide and poses diagnostic and therapeutic challenges due to its multifactorial causes. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) aims to improve outcomes by selecting euploid embryos, but its benefits in RPL patients remain uncertain. This study compared the effectiveness of PGT-A versus conventional in vitro fertilisation/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) in improving cumulative live birth rates (CLBRs) and explored the effects of maternal age and miscarriage frequency on treatment efficacy.
methodsThis study included RPL patients who underwent their first oocyte retrieval and at least one single-blastocyst transfer between June 2016 and June 2022. Patients were divided into an IVF/ICSI group (n = 156) and a PGT-A group (n = 198). Primary outcomes included the CLBR, live birth rate, miscarriage rate, time to live birth, and perinatal outcomes.
resultsAfter three single-blastocyst transfer cycles, no significant difference was observed in the conservative CLBR between the PGT-A and IVF/ICSI groups (Cycle 1: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49-1.23; Cycle 2: aOR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.51-1.29; Cycle 3: aOR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.60-1.53; all P > 0.05). Similarly, the optimal CLBR after three transfer cycles showed no significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). However, the time to live birth was significantly longer in the PGT-A group than in the IVF/ICSI group (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.42-0.75, P < 0.05). Other outcomes were comparable between the two groups.
conclusionPGT-A did not significantly improve the CLBR or shorten the time to live birth in RPL patients. Further research is needed to elucidate its role and identify potential subgroups within the RPL population that may benefit from PGT-A.
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.