ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2026
Mapping the evidence and research gaps on preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy in recurrent implantation failure: a scoping review.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Recurrent implantation failure (RIF) represents a complex and heterogeneous condition in assisted reproductive technology (ART), characterized by unclear etiology and limited evidence-based management strategies. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) has been proposed to improve reproductive outcomes through selection of euploid embryos; however, its clinical utility in RIF remains controversial. Methods: A scoping review was conducted to systematically map the available evidence regarding the role of PGT-A in RIF. A comprehensive literature search identified 18 studies evaluating reproductive outcomes in RIF patients undergoing PGT-A compared with conventional Results: Several studies reported improved outcomes at the level of individual embryo transfer (ET), including higher IR, CPR, and LBR per transfer following PGT-A. However, these findings were not consistently observed when outcomes were assessed at the patient level. In particular, cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) was generally comparable between PGT-A and non-PGT-A groups, especially in unexplained - uRIF or idiopathic - iRIF populations. Similarly, MR was largely unchanged across studies despite improved embryo selection. Subgroup analyses suggested that PGT-A may provide greater benefit in patients with a higher likelihood of embryo-related implantation failure (IF), such as those of advanced maternal age (AMA), whereas limited benefit was observed in uRIF/iRIF cohorts. Overall, substantial heterogeneity was identified regarding RIF definitions, laboratory methodologies, and clinical protocols. Conclusions: The available evidence suggests that PGT-A may improve treatment efficiency by increasing the probability of success per ET in selected RIF populations. Nevertheless, it does not consistently improve CLBR or reduce miscarriage risk, underscoring the multifactorial nature of IF. Consequently, PGT-A should be considered within an individualized treatment strategy rather than as a universal intervention for all RIF patients. Further prospective studies using standardized definitions and protocols are required to better define its clinical role.
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.