Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41851259›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2026

Navigating the use of preimplantation genetic testing: a retrospective analysis of 15 years of the Dutch National Indications Committee for PGT.

Rio N Kramers, Vyne van der Schoot, Eva H Brilstra, Michelle Cohen de Lara, Noor A A Giesbertz, Mieke S Kerstjens-Frederikse, Cor Oosterwijk, Joanne J T Verweij, Eline M Bunnik

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Coding or non-coding? The question behind sequencing.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026
    Article
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

9 authors.

Rio N KramersDepartment of Public Health, Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine Programme, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Post box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0009-0000-8699-7654
Vyne van der SchootDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Post box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. v.vanderschoot@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID 0000-0001-9829-9220
Eva H BrilstraDepartment of Genetics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Michelle Cohen de LaraDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Utrecht Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Noor A A GiesbertzDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Mieke S Kerstjens-FrederikseDepartment of Clinical Genetics, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2528-2203
Cor OosterwijkDutch Foundation for Preconception Care, Morgenkamp 52, 3751 JW, Bunschoten, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0236-4436
Joanne J T VerweijDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Eline M BunnikDepartment of Public Health, Medical Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine Programme, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Post box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1481-6222

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) as a reproductive technology to prevent the transmission of genetic anomalies to offspring has been available for decades. In the Netherlands, a National Indications Committee was tasked with guiding decisions on using PGT from 2009. The multidisciplinary Committee employs a per-indication approach for evaluating conditions caused by specific pathogenic variants, using a decisional framework, and arrives at its advice through discussion. This paper reflects on the Committee's journey in safeguarding the ethical and societal acceptability of the use of PGT in the Netherlands. We performed a quantitative and qualitative analysis of relevant documentation of the Committee, issued between 2009 and 2024. The Committee advised positively on applying PGT for 134 of 192 (70%) indications. Its advice was based on the criteria 'severity and nature of the disease', 'risk' and 'treatment options' for the majority of indications. Only in a few cases, the Committee make a normative statement about severity. There was no trend observed in requests over the years and the Committee's modus operandi remained consistent. In 15 years, the Committee has shaped the application of PGT for a broad variety of genetic conditions. Through its per-indication approach, it has been able to assess a complex interplay of disease characteristics and provide consistent guidance to medical practitioners in decision-making about the use of PGT. It has served as a robust model to safeguard the ethical and societal acceptability of PGT for a future in which new and rare genetic conditions will continuously be identified.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingPreimplantation DiagnosisFemaleHumansNetherlandsRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID41851259
PMCPMC13172490

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.