ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics1998
Comparison of FISH PRINS, and conventional and fluorescent PCR for single-cell sexing: suitability for preimplantation genetic diagnosis.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 1998. 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.
- Preimplantation genetic diagnosis using fluorescent polymerase chain reaction: results and future developments.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 1999Article
- Preimplantation genetics.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 1998Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAlthough conventional polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was the first method used for sexing in preimplantation genetic diagnosis, fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) has become the method of choice. Recently two new techniques, primed in situ synthesis (PRINS) and fluorescent PCR, have been developed. This study compares the reliability and accuracy of these four techniques in single cells.
resultsIn buccal cells, fluorescent PCR and FISH had similar reliability (94 and 93%) and accuracy (97 and 96%) rates. The reliability and accuracy of PRINS (91 and 25%) and conventional PCR (79 and 89%) were lower. In human blastomeres, FISH and fluorescent PCR had similar reliability (100%, 717; 95%, 190/201) rates. Accuracy rates were 71% (517) and 99% (188/190) for FISH and fluorescent PCR, respectively, however, too few blastomeres were analyzed by FISH for meaningful comparison. However, when these data are compared with published data, the method of choice for blastomere sexing appears to be fluorescent PCR.
conclusionsFlouroscent PCR has major implications for PGD.
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.