ReviewBiomedicines2025
The ART of Embryo Selection: A Review of Methods to Rank the Most Competent Embryo(s) for Transfer to Optimize IVF Success.
Review in Biomedicines, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Static to Dynamic: Fluorescence Imaging Technology Advances Precise Embryo Evaluation.Small methods · 2026Review
- Redefining success in assisted reproductive technologies: the Embryo-Maternal-Offspring Continuum Framework.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Review
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Within the field of assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs), embryologists regularly face the critical task of identifying embryos with the highest likelihood of implantation and survival. To help aid and standardize this practice, many embryo selection strategies have been developed to give the best chance of pregnancy success. Over the years, there has been a large increase in experimental studies conducted within this area of research. This increase has allowed for the formation of significant and plausible theories of embryo development, especially in cases where the most prominent factors seem identical. These advancements have both expanded the typical process of traditional treatments and have even paved the way for new techniques. The exact combination of all these relevant factors has not been fully elucidated into a single all-encompassing scheme for embryo decision. Morphological, genetic, and developmental indicators are well-studied individually, but the exact methods that should be prioritized in each scenario may change with respect to an individual patient. Deciding whether factors like age, egg quality, lifestyle choices, or previous medical history should alter methods of embryo ranking can result in conflict, especially in the case where a choice is being made between two similar embryos. This article reviews the conventional methods along with emerging technologies that provide the tools for embryologists to evaluate and rank embryos with high implantation potential (HIP). By showcasing these methods, including their respective benefits and drawbacks, this article provides information to allow clinicians to make effective decisions by integrating multiple approaches to embryo selection.
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.