ArticleFertility and sterility2026
Governance of polygenic embryo screening: a qualitative study on the perspectives of clinicians and patients.
Article in Fertility and sterility, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectiveTo investigate the perspectives of stakeholders on their attitudes toward potential regulation of polygenic embryo screening (PES), a new form of preimplantation genetic testing that is used to screen embryos for the genetic chances of developing medical conditions and nonmedical traits involving hundreds or thousands of genes.
designWe conducted individual, semistructured interviews and analyzed transcripts using thematic analysis. SUBJECTS: Twenty-seven US-based reproductive endocrinology and infertility specialists and 26 patients who were currently undergoing in vitro fertilization or had within the past five years.
main outcome measuresRepeating ideas and patterned responses were organized into themes and subthemes.
resultsAlthough most clinicians advocate for some form of regulation to ensure patient well-being, patients largely oppose restrictive measures, prioritizing procreative autonomy.
conclusionOur results highlight a tension between the welfarist approach favored by clinicians and the libertarian approach favored by patients, underscoring the complexity of developing governance frameworks for PES that satisfies multiple stakeholder groups. Ultimately, our findings call attention to the need for ongoing dialogue among stakeholders to address the ethical and practical implications of PES and any potential regulation of it.
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.