ReviewJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2026
To discard or to not discard 2.1PN? A systematic review and evidence table analysis.
Review in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Not all abnormal fertilization is equal: occurrence, developmental competence, and ploidy outcomes of 1PN, 3PN, and 2.1PN zygotes in ICSI/PGT-A cycles.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Article
- Shortened vitrification and warming improve survival and accelerate meiotic resumption in human germinal vesicle oocytes compared with standard protocols.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess if 2.1PN-derived embryos are diploid, euploid and suitable for embryo-transfer.
methodsThis systematic review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Embase, and SCOPUS were systematically searched for peer-reviewed original papers using relevant keywords and Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms. Diploidy, confirmed by genotyping analysis, is defined as the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcomes included blastulation rates, good quality blastocysts, euploidy, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage and live birth (LB).
resultsA total of 7 studies were included in the systematic review. Six out of seven studies indicated that 2.1PN embryos have lower developmental competence than 2PN embryos, yet can still be euploid/diploid. Only one study advised against their use for embryo transfer. In our analysis of the evidence tables, 2.1PN-derived embryos showed a descriptive trend toward lower blastulation rates (- 22.50%), good-quality blastocyst formation (- 12.93%), diploidy (- 16.70%), and euploidy rates (- 28.37%) when compared with their 2PN counterparts. Four studies also analyzed LB in 2.1PN, reporting an overall LB of 30.4% (7/23). Finally, based on the crude aggregated blastulation (32.30%), euploidy (35.0%), and diploidy (82.0%) rates, the estimated probability for a single 2.1PN zygote to develop into a euploid and diploid blastocyst was 9.3%.
conclusionsAlthough 2.1PN-derived embryos exhibited lower developmental competence, they showed potential for healthy LB. Our findings support the clinical use of 2.1PN-derived embryos when diploidy is confirmed by a validated genotyping analysis, providing further empirical evidence to support more inclusive and flexible clinical recommendations, potentially improving cumulative success rates. CLINICAL
trial registrationCRD420251070366.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42426440What 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.