ReviewObstetrics and gynecology international2026
Preimplantation Genetic Testing and Embryo Mosaicism: A Critical Narrative Review of Clinical Outcomes and Controversies.
Review in Obstetrics and gynecology international, 2026. 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.
- Preimplantation Genetic Testing and Embryo Mosaicism: A Critical Narrative Review of Clinical Outcomes and Controversies.Obstetrics and gynecology international · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) is widely used to select euploid embryos in patients at higher risk of transmitting genetic abnormalities during assisted reproductive technology (ART). Advances in PGT-A have resulted in the increased detection of embryo chromosomal mosaicism. This review aims to update clinicians and researchers on the implications of mosaicism in ART and emerging clinical outcomes from the use of mosaic embryo transfer cycles. Methods: A critical narrative review of the current literature was conducted, focusing on clinical outcomes of mosaic embryo transfers, the reliability of mosaicism detection in blastocyst trophectoderm biopsy, and controversies surrounding mosaicism thresholds and their clinical significance in ART. Literature was identified through searches of PubMed and relevant databases focusing on studies related to PGT-A and embryo mosaicism. As this is a narrative review, no statistical analysis was performed. We conducted a critical narrative review of articles published between January 2015 and May 2026 identified through searches of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library using terms related to PGT-A, mosaicism, and IVF outcomes, including original studies, society guidelines, and position statements. Results: Recent findings demonstrate that mosaicism detected in blastocyst trophectoderm does not always reflect the chromosomal constitution of subsequent embryonic-fetal development. Mosaic embryo transfers can result in healthy clinical outcomes, avoid embryo wastage, and potentially reduce the number of ART cycles. However, such transfers result in reduced implantation rates and higher miscarriage rates, notably with embryos exhibiting complex and high-level mosaicism. Genetic testing is more reliable with high-level mosaicism, and defining a high-level threshold presents one strategy to prioritize mosaic embryos for transfer. Conclusion: Future research should determine the clinical factors that may influence mosaicism and whether a threshold of mosaicism can improve clinical outcomes. Understanding the benefits versus potential risks of mosaicism will provide important information for patients, counselors, and clinicians in the selection and management of mosaic embryos in ART.
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.