Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41010027›Full record

ReviewGenes2025

Evidence-Based Reporting in Preimplantation Genetic Testing (PGT).

Maurizio Poli, Ludovica Picchetta, Laura Siciliani, Antonio Capalbo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Maurizio PoliReproductive Genetics, Juno Genetics, 00188 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0996-807X
Ludovica PicchettaReproductive Genetics, Juno Genetics, 00188 Rome, Italy.
Laura SicilianiReproductive Genetics, Juno Genetics, 00188 Rome, Italy.
Antonio CapalboReproductive Genetics, Juno Genetics, 00188 Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) reports play a decisive role in determining the fate of IVF-generated embryos. The identification of a chromosomal or genetic abnormality that could impact the health of the resulting newborn often leads to embryo disposal or indefinite storage in cryogenic containers. As a growing proportion of IVF cycles include PGT assessment, greater scrutiny is being placed on its clinical validity. Initially developed to detect monogenic disorders (PGT-M) and later expanded to identify full chromosomal aneuploidies, PGT is primarily used to identify embryos unlikely to implant (aneuploid), those that would lead to miscarriage, or those causing chromosomal syndromes or monogenic conditions. Advancements in genetic analysis now allow for the assessment of more complex traits and chromosomal features from a trophectoderm biopsy, including segmental aneuploidies, chromosomal mosaicism, and polygenic conditions. However, as technology pushes the limits of biological resolution, questions arise regarding the accuracy, clinical utility, and representativeness of these findings for the entire embryo. This article reviews the gold standards for validating clinical findings and reporting strategies, aiming to maximize diagnostic utility while minimizing false positives towards appropriately defined reproductive outcomes and phenotypes.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingPreimplantation DiagnosisAneuploidyEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleFertilization in VitroHumansPregnancyembryoPGTreportingvalidation

Identifiers

PMID41010027
PMCPMC12469648

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.