Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9604763›Full record

ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics1998

Incidence of chromosomal abnormalities from a morphologically normal cohort of embryos in poor-prognosis patients.

M C Magli, L Gianaroli, S Munné, A P Ferraretti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Protein nanotechnology - A powerful futuristic diagnostic technique.Indian journal of clinical biochemistry : IJCB · 2005
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

M C MagliS.I.S.ME.R., Reproductive Medicine Unit, Bologna, Italy.
L Gianaroli
S Munné
A P Ferraretti

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePreimplantation genetic diagnosis of aneuploidy was performed on the embryos yielded by 70 poor-prognosis patients, with the aim of transferring those with a normal chromosomal complement, thus possibly increasing the chances of pregnancy.

methodsMulticolor fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) was applied for the simultaneous detection of chromosomes X, Y, 13, 16, 18, and 21. Inclusion criteria were (1) a maternal age of 36 years or older (n = 33), (2) three or more previous in vitro fertilization cycles (n = 20), and (3) an altered karyotype (n = 17).

resultsA total of 412 embryos underwent FISH, resulting in 234 (57%) that were chromosomally abnormal. Euploid embryos were available for transfer in 59 patients, generating 19 pregnancies (32%), with an implantation rate of 19.9%.

conclusionsHigh rates of chromosomally abnormal embryos in poor-prognosis patients can determine repeated in vitro fertilization failures when embryo selection is performed on the basis of morphological criteria alone. Hence, the FISH analysis could represent the prevailing approach for the identification of embryos possessing full potential for developing to term.

Indexed as

Preimplantation DiagnosisAdultAneuploidyChromosome AberrationsChromosome DisordersEmbryo, MammalianFemaleFertilization in VitroHumansIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescencePregnancyPregnancy, High-RiskPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID9604763
PMCPMC3454748

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.