ReviewJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics1996
Assessing congenital anomalies after preimplantation genetic diagnosis.
Review in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 1996. 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, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Congenital Abnormalities of Infants Conceived by Assisted Reproductive Techniques versus Infants with Natural Conception in Tehran.International journal of fertility & sterility · 2013Article
- Preimplantation genetic diagnosis.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 1996Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPreimplantation genetic diagnosis is an exciting advance in prenatal diagnosis. However, the safety of embryo biopsy must be determined with respect to both pregnancy rate and cogenital anomalies. ANALYSIS: Too few pregnancies have been reported to allow meaningful inferences to be drawn, for which reason data on pregnancy losses and anomalies after conventional IVF were first reviewed. Loss rates are approximately 25%, and anomaly rates are not increased over that observed in the general population. Unfortunately, considerable methodological problems exist in published surveys: lack of proper controls, failure to take into account potential confounding variables, anomaly surveillance that is inconsistent with respect to the vigor with which anomalies are sought, inclusion or exclusion of minor anomalies, inclusion or exclusion of anomalies evident only on ultrasound, and even inclusion or exclusion of anomalies present in terminated pregnancies. We recommend prospective surveillance for major anomalies, defined as those causing death, major handicap or requiring surgery. Prospective surveillance ideally dictates collection of intake information at the time pregnancy is diagnosed, surveillance during pregnancy to exclude teratogenic influences, and systematic neonatal anomaly surveillance.
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.