ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2025
Live birth rates with and without preimplantation genetic testing: a single-center retrospective study.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 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.
- Mapping the genetic and genomic landscape of assisted reproductive technology outcomes: a bibliometric analysis (2014-2025).Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEmbryo selection and preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) are used in clinical practice with the aim of improving pregnancy outcomes in patients. However, it remains uncertain whether different PGT techniques improve the live birth rate in patients compared to conventional in vitro fertilization (IVF).
methodsIn this single-center retrospective cohort study, we included couples undergoing their first IVF-assisted conception cycle with only their first single frozen embryo transfer. All couples were fertilized by intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and had three or more high-quality blastocysts on the fifth day of embryo culture. The PGT group screened the optimal blastocysts for transfer by their counterpart technique, while the conventional IVF group selected blastocysts based on morphological criteria. Clinicians select different controlled ovarian hyperstimulation protocols and endometrial preparation protocols based on the patient's individual circumstances. The primary outcome was to observe the live birth rate of first frozen single-embryo transfer in each group.
resultsA total of 409 couples were enrolled in the study, of which 219 were in the PGT group, 87 were PGT-A, 22 were PGT-M, 110 were PGT-SR, and 190 were in the IVF group. The average age of patients in the PGT group was 32.90 years, while 31.53 years in the IVF group. The live birth rate was higher in the PGT group (46.12%) compared to that of the conventional IVF group (34.74%) (p = 0.0195, OR 0.6218, 95% CI 0.4161-0.9189). The live birth rate in the PGT-A subgroup (48.28%) was also higher than that in the IVF group (p = 0.032, OR 0.5703, 95% CI 0.3380-0.9610). Different controlled ovarian hyperstimulation protocols and endometrial preparation protocols had no effect on the live birth rate of PGT.
conclusionFor first frozen single-embryo transfer, PGT, particularly PGT-A, can improve live birth rates compared to conventional IVF. Different controlled ovarian hyperstimulation protocols and endometrial preparation protocols had no effect on the live birth rate of PGT.
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.