ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2025
Effect of re-biopsy and re-vitrification on clinical outcomes in preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo investigate whether re-biopsy and re-vitrification affect embryo developmental potential and clinical outcomes.
methodsEmbryos that underwent preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) and single embryo transfer between December 2017 and April 2024 were studied. All embryos were categorized into three groups: fresh biopsy and vitrification (BV group; n = 346); thawed, biopsied, and subsequently vitrified (VBV group; n = 12); fresh biopsied, vitrified, further thawed and biopsied again due to inconclusive results from the previous biopsy (BVBV group; n = 19). The live birth rate and miscarriage rate will be evaluated after embryo transfer in each group.
resultsLive birth rate (LBR) was not statistically significant among the BV group (50.00%), VBV group [41.67%; adjusted relative risks (aRR) 0.96; 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.81-1.14], and BVBV group (42.11%; aRR 0.97, 95% CI: 0.83-1.13). The miscarriage rate was not statistically significant: BV group (11.27%); VBV group (25%; aRR 1.09, 95% CI: 0.95-1.25), and BVBV group (5.26%; aRR 0.97, 95% CI: 0.91-1.02).
conclusionsThe differences in LBR and miscarriage rates among the groups were not statistically significant. However, the limited sample sizes of the VBV and BVBV groups cannot rule out the possibility of moderate differences. Some embryos can be successfully salvaged, leading to live births. To minimize inconclusive results, the laboratory should refine the procedural details.
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.