Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2018 Mar 16;3(3):CD011872.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011872.pub3.

Metabolomics for improving pregnancy outcomes in women undergoing assisted reproductive technologies

Charalampos S Siristatidis  1 , Eleni Sertedaki, Dennis Vaidakis, Christos Varounis, Marialena Trivella
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Metabolomics for improving pregnancy outcomes in women undergoing assisted reproductive technologies

Charalampos S Siristatidis et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: In order to overcome the low effectiveness of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) and the high incidence of multiple births, metabolomics is proposed as a non-invasive method to assess oocyte quality, embryo viability, and endometrial receptivity, and facilitate a targeted subfertility treatment.

Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of metabolomic assessment of oocyte quality, embryo viability, and endometrial receptivity for improving live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates in women undergoing ART, compared to conventional methods of assessment.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trial registers (Feburary 2018). We also examined the reference lists of primary studies and review articles, citation lists of relevant publications, and abstracts of major scientific meetings.

Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on metabolomic assessment of oocyte quality, embryo viability, and endometrial receptivity in women undergoing ART.

Data collection and analysis: Pairs of review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted the data. The primary outcomes were rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (composite outcome) and miscarriage. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, multiple and ectopic pregnancy, cycle cancellation, and foetal abnormalities. We combined data to calculate odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods.

Main results: We included four trials with a total of 924 women, with a mean age of 33 years. All assessed the role of metabolomic investigation of embryo viability. We found no RCTs that addressed the metabolomic assessment of oocyte quality or endometrial receptivity.We found low-quality evidence of little or no difference between metabolomic and non-metabolomic assessment of embryos for rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.35, I² = 0%; four RCTs; N = 924), live birth alone (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.44, I² = 0%; three RCTs; N = 597), or miscarriage (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.82; I² = 0%; three RCTs; N = 869). A sensitivity analysis excluding studies at high risk of bias did not change the interpretation of the results for live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.25, I² = 0%; two RCTs; N = 744). Our findings suggested that if the rate of live birth or ongoing pregnancy was 36% in the non-metabolomic group, it would be between 32% and 45% with the use of metabolomics.We found low-quality evidence of little or no difference between groups in rates of clinical pregnancy (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.45; I²= 44%; four trials; N = 924) or multiple pregnancy (OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.19; I² = 0%; two RCTs, N = 180). Rates of cycle cancellation were higher in the metabolomics group (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.69; I² = 51%; two RCTs; N = 744, low quality evidence). There was very low-quality evidence of little or no difference between groups in rates of ectopic pregnancy rates (OR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 74.07; one RCT; N = 417), and foetal abnormality (no events; one RCT; N = 125). Data were lacking on other adverse effects. A sensitivity analysis excluding studies at high risk of bias did not change the interpretation of the results for clinical pregnancy (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.38; I² = 40%; two RCTs; N = 744).The overall quality of the evidence ranged from very low to low. Limitations included serious risk of bias (associated with poor reporting of methods, attrition bias, selective reporting, and other biases), imprecision, and inconsistency across trials.

Authors' conclusions: According to current trials in women undergoing ART, there is no evidence to show that metabolomic assessment of embryos before implantation has any meaningful effect on rates of live birth, ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage, multiple pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy or foetal abnormalities. The existing evidence varied from very low to low-quality. Data on other adverse events were sparse, so we could not reach conclusions on these. At the moment, there is no evidence to support or refute the use of this technique for subfertile women undergoing ART. Robust evidence is needed from further RCTs, which study the effects on live birth and miscarriage rates for the metabolomic assessment of embryo viability. Well designed and executed trials are also needed to study the effects on oocyte quality and endometrial receptivity, since none are currently available.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to disclose.

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram.
2
2
Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies
3
3
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study
4
4
Forest plot of comparison: Metabolomic profile vs standard, outcome: 1.2 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy.
5
5
Forest plot of comparison: Metabolomic profile vs standard, outcome: 2.1 Live birth.
6
6
Forest plot of comparison: Metabolomic profile vs standard, outcome: 1.3 Miscarriage.
7
7
Forest plot of comparison: Metabolomic profile vs standard, outcome: 1.4 Clinical pregnancy.
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Metabolomic profile vs standard, Outcome 1 Live birth.
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Metabolomic profile vs standard, Outcome 2 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy.
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 Metabolomic profile vs standard, Outcome 3 Miscarriage.
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 Metabolomic profile vs standard, Outcome 4 Clinical pregnancy.
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 Metabolomic profile vs standard, Outcome 5 Cancellation.
1.6
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1 Metabolomic profile vs standard, Outcome 6 Multiple pregnancy.
1.7
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1 Metabolomic profile vs standard, Outcome 7 Ectopic pregnancy.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

References to studies included in this review

Economou 2011 {published data only}
    1. Economou K, Davies S, Argyrou M, Doriza S, Sisi P, Moschopoulou M, et al. Selection of embryos with the best reproductive potential according to their metabolomics profile using near infrared spectroscopy: a prospective randomized study. Human Reproduction 2011;26(Suppl 1):i1‐i353 P‐188.
Hardarson 2012 {published data only}
    1. Hardarson T, Ahlström A, Rogberg L, Botros L, Hillensjö T, Westlander G, et al. Non‐invasive metabolomic profiling of Day 2 and 5 embryo culture medium: a prospective randomized trial. Human Reproduction 2012;27(1):89‐96. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/der373] - DOI - PubMed
Sfontouris 2013 {published data only}
    1. Sfontouris IA, Lainas GT, Sakkas D, Zorzovilis IZ, Petsas GK, Lainas TG. Non‐invasive metabolomic analysis using a commercial NIR instrument for embryo selection. Journal of Human Reproductive Sciences 2013;6(2):133‐9. [DOI: 10.4103/0974-1208.117174] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Vergouw 2012 {published data only}
    1. Vergouw CG, Kieslinger DC, Kostelijk EH, Botros LL, Schats R, Hompes PG, et al. Day 3 embryo selection by metabolomic profiling of culture medium with near‐infrared spectroscopy as an adjunct to morphology: a randomized controlled trial. Human Reproduction 2012;27(8):2304‐11. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/des175] - DOI - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Ahlstrom 2011 {published data only}
    1. Ahlström A, Wikland M, Rogberg L, Barnett JS, Tucker M, Hardarson T. Cross‐validation and predictive value of near‐infrared spectroscopy algorithms for day‐5 blastocyst transfer. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 2011;22(5):477‐84. [DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.01.009] - DOI - PubMed
Bellver 2015 {published data only}
    1. Bellver J, Santos MJ, Alamá P, Castelló D, Privitera L, Galliano D, et al. Day 3 embryo metabolomics in the spent culture media is altered in obese women undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertility and Sterility 2015;103(6):1407‐15.e1. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.03.015] - DOI - PubMed
Ciepiela 2015 {published data only}
    1. Ciepiela P, Bączkowski T, Drozd A, Kazienko A, Stachowska E, Kurzawa R. Arachidonic and linoleic acid derivatives impact oocyte ICSI fertilization — a prospective analysis of follicular fluid and a matched oocyte in a 'one follicle — one retrieved oocyte — one resulting embryo' investigational setting. PLos One 2015;10(3):e0119087. [doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0119087. eCollection 2015] - PMC - PubMed
Cordeiro 2015 {published data only}
    1. Cordeiro FB, Cataldi TR, Perkel KJ, do Vale Teixeira da Costa L, Rochetti RC, Stevanato J, et al. Lipidomics analysis of follicular fluid by ESI‐MS reveals potential biomarkers for ovarian endometriosis. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 2015;32(12):1817‐25. [DOI: 10.1007/s10815-015-0592-1] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
de Los Santos 2015 {published data only}
    1. Santos MJ, Gámiz P, Santos JM, Romero JL, Prados N, Alonso C, et al. The metabolomic profile of spent culture media from day 3 human embryos cultured under low oxygen Tension. PLoS One 2015;10(11):e0142724. [DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0142724] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Drabkova 2016 {published data only}
    1. Drábková P, Andrlová L, Kanďár R. An HPLC method for the determination of selected amino acids in human embryo culture medium. Biomedical Chromatography 2017;31:e3800. [DOI: 10.1002/bmc.3800] - DOI - PubMed
Fu 2013 {published data only}
    1. Fu J, Shao J, Li X, Xu Y, Liu S, Sun X. Non‐invasive metabolomic profiling of day 3 embryo culture media using near‐infrared spectroscopy to assess the development potential of embryos.. Acta Biochimica et Biophysica Sinica (Shanghai) 2013;45(12):1074‐8. [DOI: 10.1093/abbs/gmt115] - DOI - PubMed
Garip 2016 {published data only}
    1. Garip S, Ceyhan ST, Korkmaz C, Atis M, Guney E, Bal EM, et al. Embryo quality assessment in in vitro fertilization (IVF) using metabolite footprints secreted to human embryo culture media by ATR‐FTIR spectroscopy and multivariate analysis. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 2016;32(Suppl 1):S9. [DOI: 10.1016/S1472-6483(16)30153-5] - DOI
Gonsalvez‐Alvarez 2015 {published data only}
    1. Gonsalvez‐Alvarez R, Ten J, Lledo B, Bernabeu R, Marhuenda‐Egea FC. Non‐invasive metabolomic and chemometric analysis of human embryo culture medium at low oxygen pressure. Human Reproduction Conference: 31st Annual Meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, ESHRE 2015. Lisbon Portugal. Human Reproduction 2015;30(Suppl 1):i238.
Hardarson 2008 {published data only}
    1. Hardarson T, Tucker M, Seli E, Botros L, Roos P, Sakkas D. Non‐invasive metabolic profiling of day 5 embryo culture media adds to the discriminatory power of blastocyst culture for single embryo transfer (SET). Fertility and Sterility 2008;90(Supp 1):S77. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.07.885] - DOI
Kato 2007 {published data only}
    1. Kato O, Teramoto S, Morita H, Botros L, Roos P, Burns D. Metabolomic assessment of day 2 (D2) embryos based on pregnancy outcome after single embryo transfer (SET). Fertility and Sterility 2007;88(Supp 1):S27. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.07.106] - DOI
Kirkegaard 2013 {published data only}
    1. Kirkegaard K, Svane ASP, Hindkjaer JJ, Nielsen NC, Ingerslev HJ. Metabolic profiles of spent culture media does not predict pregnancy outcome. Human Reproduction 2013;28(Suppl 1):i23‐5. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/det230] - DOI
Kirkegaard 2014 {published data only}
    1. Kirkegaard K, Svane AS, Nielsen JS, Hindkjær JJ, Nielsen NC, Ingerslev HJ. Nuclear magnetic resonance metabolomic profiling of day 3 and 5 embryo culture medium does not predict pregnancy outcome in good prognosis patients: a prospective cohort study on single transferred embryos. Human Reproduction 2014;29(11):2413‐20. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deu236] - DOI - PubMed
Li 2015 {published data only}
    1. Li X, Xu Y, Fu J, Zhang WB, Liu SY, Sun XX. Non‐invasive metabolomic profiling of embryo culture media and morphology grading to predict implantation outcome in frozen‐thawed embryo transfer cycles. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 2015;32(11):1597‐605. [DOI: 10.1007/s10815-015-0578-z] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Lian 2010 {published data only}
    1. Lian F, Zhao B, Lu XM. Effect of er'zhi tiangui granule on metabonomics and level of Ca2+ in follicle fluid in patients after in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Zhongguo Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Za Zhi [Chinese journal of integrated traditional and Western medicine] 2010;30(1):22‐5. [PUBMED: 20353026] - PubMed
McRae 2012 {published data only}
    1. McRae C, Baskind NE, Orsi NM, Sharma V, Fisher J. Metabolic profiling of follicular fluid and plasma from natural cycle in vitro fertilization patients — a pilot study. Fertility and Sterility 2012;98(6):1449‐57.e6. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.07.1131] - DOI - PubMed
Montani 2016 {published data only}
    1. Montani DA, Camillo J, Rodrigues‐Oliveira A, Oliveira‐Silva D, Lo Turco EG, Fraietta R. Metabolomic profile of follicular fluid as a predictive tool for pregnancy outcomes. Fertility and Sterility 2016;106(3, Suppl):e312‐3.
Montsko 2015 {published data only}
    1. Montskó G, Zrínyi Z, Janáky T, Szabó Z, Várnagy Á, Kovács GL, et al. Noninvasive embryo viability assessment by quantitation of human haptoglobin alpha‐1 fragment in the in vitro fertilization culture medium: an additional tool to increase success rate. Fertility and Sterility 2015;103(3):687‐93. [doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.11.031] - PubMed
Nagy 2015 {published data only}
    1. Nagy RA, Montfoort AP, Dikkers A, Echten‐Arends J, Homminga I, Land JA, et al. Presence of bile acids in human follicular fluid and their relation with embryo development in modified natural cycle IVF. Human Reproduction 2015;30(5):1102‐09. [doi: 10.1093/humrep/dev034] - PubMed
NCT01427413 {published data only}
    1. NCT01427413. Identification and standardization of a method that would allow the study of the metabolic profile of blastocoele lays the foundation to assess blastocyst metabolomic profile and its relation with embryo morphology and embryo implantation. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01427413 (first received 29 August 2011). [https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01427413]
Rødgaard 2015 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Rødgaard T, Heegaard PM, Callesen H. Non‐invasive assessment of in‐vitro embryo quality to improve transfer success. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 2015;31(5):585‐92. [DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2015.08.003] - DOI - PubMed
Scott 2008 {published data only}
    1. Scott R, Seli E, Miller K, Sakkas D, Scott K, Burns DH. Noninvasive metabolomic profiling of human embryo culture media using Raman spectroscopy predicts embryonic reproductive potential: a prospective blinded pilot study. Fertility and Sterility 2008;90(1):77‐83. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.11.058] - DOI - PubMed
Seli 2007 {published data only}
    1. Seli E, Sakkas D, Scott R, Kwok SC, Rosendahl SM, Burns DH. Noninvasive metabolomic profiling of embryo culture media using Raman and near‐infrared spectroscopy correlates with reproductive potential of embryos in women undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertility and Sterility 2007;88(5):1350‐7. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.07.1390] - DOI - PubMed
Seli 2010 {published data only}
    1. Seli E, Vergouw CG, Morita H, Botros L, Roos P, Lambalk CB, et al. Noninvasive metabolomic profiling as an adjunct to morphology for noninvasive embryo assessment in women undergoing single embryo transfer. Fertility and Sterility 2010;94(2):535‐42. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.03.078] - DOI - PubMed
Simerman 2015 {published data only}
    1. Simerman AA, Hill DL, Grogan TR, Elashoff D, Clarke NJ, Goldstein EH, et al. Intrafollicular cortisol levels inversely correlate with cumulus cell lipid content as a possible energy source during oocyte meiotic resumption in women undergoing ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization. Fertility and Sterility 2015;103(1):249‐57. [doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.09.034.] - PMC - PubMed
Valckx 2014 {published data only}
    1. Valckx SD, Arias‐Alvarez M, Pauw I, Fievez V, Vlaeminck B, Fransen E, et al. Fatty acid composition of the follicular fluid of normal weight, overweight and obese women undergoing assisted reproductive treatment: a descriptive cross‐sectional study. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology 2014;12:13. [DOI: 10.1186/1477-7827-12-13] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Vergouw 2008 {published data only}
    1. Vergouw CG, Botros LL, Roos P, Lens JW, Schats R, Hompes PG, et al. Metabolomic profiling by near‐infrared spectroscopy as a tool to assess embryo viability: a novel, non‐invasive method for embryo selection. Human Reproduction 2008;23(7):1499‐504. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/den111] - DOI - PubMed
Xia 2014 {published data only}
    1. Xia L, Zhao X, Sun Y, Hong Y, Gao Y, Hu S. Metabolomic profiling of human follicular fluid from patients with repeated failure of in vitro fertilization using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Pathology 2014;7(10):7220‐9. [PUBMED: PMC4230118] - PMC - PubMed
Yildizfer 2015 {published data only}
    1. Yildizfer F, Donma O, Yen M, Ekmekci O, Karatas Kul ZA, Keser Z, et al. In vitro fertilization, levels of pro‐inflammatory factors and lipid peroxidation. International Journal of Fertility and Sterility 2015;9(3):277‐84. - PMC - PubMed
Zhao 2013 {published data only}
    1. Zhao Q, Yin T, Peng J, Zou Y, Yang J, Shen A, et al. Noninvasive metabolomic profiling of human embryo culture media using a simple spectroscopy adjunct to morphology for embryo assessment in in vitro fertilization (IVF). International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2013;14(4):6556–70. [DOI: 10.3390/ijms14046556] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

References to ongoing studies

NCT02698488 {published data only}
    1. NCT02698488. Embryo selection by metabolomic profiling of embryo culture medium with mass spectroscopy as an adjunct to morphology. clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02698488 (first received 29 February 2016).

Additional references

Allen 2003
    1. Allen J, Davey HM, Broadhurst D, Heald JK, Rowland JJ, Oliver SG, et al. High‐throughput classification of yeast mutants for functional genomics using metabolic footprinting. Nature Biotechnology 2003;21(6):692–6. [DOI: 10.1038/nbt823] - DOI - PubMed
Altmäe 2014
    1. Altmäe S, Esteban FJ, Stavreus‐Evers A, Simón C, Giudice L, Lessey BA, et al. Guidelines for the design, analysis and interpretation of 'omics' data: focus on human endometrium. Human Reproduction Update 2014;20(1):12‐28. [DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmt048] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Armstrong 2015
    1. Armstrong S, Arroll N, Cree LM, Jordan V, Farquhar C. Time‐lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011320.pub2] - DOI - PubMed
Baczkowski 2004
    1. Baczkowski T, Kurzawa R, Głabowski W. Methods of embryo scoring in in vitro fertilization. Reproductive Biology 2004;4(1):5‐22. [PUBMED: 15094792] - PubMed
Botros 2008
    1. Botros L, Sakkas D, Seli E. Metabolomics and its application for non‐invasive embryo assessment in IVF. Molecular Human Reproduction 2008;14(12):679–90. [DOI: 10.1093/molehr/gan066] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Bracewell‐Milnes 2017
    1. Bracewell‐Milnes T, *, Saso S, Abdalla H, Nikolau D, Norman‐Taylor J, Johnson M, et al. Metabolomics as a tool to identify biomarkers to predict and improve outcomes in reproductive medicine: asystematic review. Human Reproduction Update 2017;23(6):723‐36. [DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmx023] - DOI - PubMed
Brison 2004
    1. Brison DR, Houghton FD, Falconer D, Roberts SA, Hawkhead J, Humpherson PG, et al. Identification of viable embryos in IVF by non‐invasive measurement of amino acid turnover. Human Reproduction 2004;19(10):2319‐24. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deh409] - DOI - PubMed
Bromer 2008a
    1. Bromer JG, Seli E. Assessment of embryo viability in assisted reproductive technology: shortcomings of current approaches and the emerging role of metabolomics. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 2008;20(3):234–41. [DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0b013e3282fe723d] - DOI - PubMed
Bromer 2008b
    1. Bromer JG, Sakkas D, Seli E. Metabolomic profiling of embryo culture media to predict IVF outcome. Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology 2008;3(4):441‐7. [DOI: 10.1586/17474108.3.4.441] - DOI
CDC 2007
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. 2005 Assisted reproductive technology success rates: national summary and fertility clinic reports. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2007.
Chamayou 2013
    1. Chamayou S, Patrizio P, Storaci G, Tomaselli V, Alecci C, Ragolia C, et al. The use of morphokinetic parameters to select all embryos with full capacity to implant. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 2013;30(5):703‐10. [DOI: 10.1007/s10815-013-9992-2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Cortezzi 2013
    1. Cortezzi SS, Cabral EC, Trevisan MG, Ferreira CR, Setti AS, Braga DP, et al. Prediction of embryo implantation potential by mass spectrometry fingerprinting of the culture medium. Reproduction 2013;145(5):453‐62. [DOI: 10.1530/REP-12-0168] - DOI - PubMed
de Mouzon 2010
    1. Mouzon J, Goossens V, Bhattacharya S, Castilla JA, Ferraretti AP, Korsak V, et al. European IVF‐monitoring (EIM) Consortium, European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2006: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Human Reproduction 2010;25(8):1851–62. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deq124] - DOI - PubMed
Egea 2014
    1. Egea RR, Puchalt NG, Escrivá MM, Varghese AC. OMICS: current and future perspectives in reproductive medicine and technology. Journal of Human Reproductive Sciences 2014;7(2):73‐92. [DOI: 10.4103/0974-1208.138857] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law 2010
    1. ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law including, Dondorp W, Wert G, Pennings G, Shenfield F, Devroey P, Tarlatzis B, et al. Lifestyle‐related factors and access to medically assisted reproduction. Human Reproduction 2010;25(3):578‐83. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dep458] - DOI - PubMed
Gardner 2013
    1. Gardner DK, Sakkas D, Seli E, Wells D (editors). Human Gametes and Preimplantation Embryos. 1. New York (NY): Springer‐Verlag, 2013. [DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-6651-2] - DOI
Gardner 2015
    1. Gardner DK, Meseguer M, Rubio C, Treff NR. Diagnosis of human preimplantation embryo viability. Human Reproduction Update 2015;21(6):727‐47. [DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmu064] - DOI - PubMed
GRADEpro GDT 2014 [Computer program]
    1. GRADE Working Group, McMaster University. GRADEpro GDT. Version (accessed prior to November 2016). Hamilton (ON): GRADE Working Group, McMaster University, 2014. [www.gradepro.org]
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org. [www.cochrane‐handbook.org]
Hillier 2008
    1. Hillier SG. Research challenge: what is the best non‐invasive test of oocyte/embryo competence?. Molecular Human Reproduction 2008;14(12):665. [DOI: 10.1093/molehr/gan068] - DOI - PubMed
Houghton 2002
    1. Houghton FD, Hawkhead JA, Humpherson PG, Hogg JE, Balen AH, Rutherford AJ, et al. Non‐invasive amino acid turnover predicts human embryo developmental capacity. Human Reproduction (Oxford, England) 2002;17(4):999–1005. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/17.4.999] - DOI - PubMed
Kallen 2010
    1. Källén B, Finnström O, Lindam A, Nilsson E, Nygren KG, Otterblad Olausson P. Trends in delivery and neonatal outcome after in vitro fertilization in Sweden: data for 25 years. Human Reproduction (Oxford, England) 2010;25(4):1026‐34. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deq003] - DOI - PubMed
Kasius 2014
    1. Kasius A, Smit JG, Torrance HL, Eijkemans MJ, Mol BW, Opmeer BC, et al. Endometrial thickness and pregnancy rates after IVF: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Human Reproduction Update 2014;20(4):530‐41. [DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmu011] - DOI - PubMed
Kjelberg 2006
    1. Kjellberg AT, Carlsson P, Bergh C. Randomized single versus double embryo transfer: obstetric and paediatric outcome and a cost‐effectiveness analysis. Human Reproduction (Oxford, England) 2006;21(1):210‐6. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dei298] - DOI - PubMed
Koot 2013
    1. Koot YE, Macklon NS. Embryo implantation: biology, evaluation, and enhancement. Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology 2013;25(4):274‐9. [DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0b013e3283630d94] - DOI - PubMed
Kovalevsky 2005
    1. Kovalevsky G, Patrizio P. High rates of embryo wastage with use of assisted reproductive technology: a look at the trends between 1995 and 2001 in the United States. Fertility and Sterility 2005;84(2):325–30. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.04.020] - DOI - PubMed
Ledger 2006
    1. Ledger WL, Anumba D, Marlow N, Thomas CM, Wilson EC. The costs to the NHS of multiple births after IVF treatment in the UK. BJOG 2006;113(1):21‐5. [DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00790.x] - DOI - PubMed
Lieberman 2001
    1. Lieberman BA, Falconer D, Brison DR. Presentation of in vitro fertilisation results. The Lancet 2001;357(9253):397. [DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)71534-8] - DOI - PubMed
McRae 2013
    1. McRae C, Sharma V, Fisher J. Metabolite profiling in the pursuit of biomarkers for IVF outcome: the case for metabolomics studies. International Journal of Reproductive Medicine 2013;2013:16. [DOI: 10.1155/2013/603167] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Montag 2013
    1. Montag M, Toth B, Strowitzki T. New approaches to embryo selection. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 2013;27(5):539‐46. [DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.05.013] - DOI - PubMed
Nagy 2008
    1. Nagy ZP, Sakkas D, Behr B. Symposium: Innovative techniques in human embryo viability assessment. Non‐invasive assessment of embryo viability by metabolomic profiling of culture media ('metabolomics'). Reproductive Biomedicine Online 2008;17(4):502‐7. [PUBMED: 18854103 ] - PubMed
Nel‐Themaat 2011
    1. Nel‐Themaat L, Nagy ZP. A review of the promises and pitfalls of oocyte and embryo metabolomics. Placenta 2011;32(3 Suppl):S257‐63. [DOI: 10.1016/j.placenta.2011.05.011] - DOI - PubMed
NICE 2013
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) [Fertility problems: assessment and treatment {Updated August 2016]]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg156 (accessed 1 September 2016). - PubMed
Nicoli 2013
    1. Nicoli A, Palomba S, Capodanno F, Fini M, Falbo A, Sala GB. Pronuclear morphology evaluation for fresh in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles: a systematic review. Journal of Ovarian Research 2013;6(1):64. [DOI: 10.1186/1757-2215-6-64] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Oliver 1998
    1. Oliver SG, Winson MK, Kell DB, Baganz F. Systematic functional analysis of the yeast genome. Trends in Biotechnology 1998;16(9):373–8. [DOI: 10.1016/S0167-7799(98)01214-1] - DOI - PubMed
Pacella 2012
    1. Pacella L, Zander‐Fox DL, Armstrong DT, Lane M. Women with reduced ovarian reserve or advanced maternal age have an altered follicular environment. Fertility and Sterility 2012;98(4):986‐94.e1‐2. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.06.025] - DOI - PubMed
Piñero‐Sagredo 2010
    1. Piñero‐Sagredo E, Nunes S, Santos MJ, Celda B, Esteve V. NMR metabolic profile of human follicular fluid. NMR in Biomedicine 2010;23(5):485‐95. [DOI: 10.1002/nbm.1488] - DOI - PubMed
Revelli 2009
    1. Revelli A, Delle Piane L, Casano S, Molinari E, Massobrio M, Rinaudo P. Follicular fluid content and oocyte quality: from single biochemical markers to metabolomics. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology: RB&E 2009;7:40. [DOI: 10.1186/1477-7827-7-40] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
RevMan 2014 [Computer program]
    1. Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
Sakkas 2005
    1. Sakkas D, Gardner DK. Noninvasive methods to assess embryo quality. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 2005;17(3):283‐8. [PUBMED: 15870563] - PubMed
SART 2009
    1. Society for Assisted Reproduction Technology (SART). Available from: http://www.sart.org/SART_Success_Rates/ 2009; Vol. (accessed 1 November 2016).
Seli 2008
    1. Seli E, Botros L, Sakkas D, Burns DH. Noninvasive metabolomic profiling of embryo culture media using proton nuclear magnetic resonance correlates with reproductive potential of embryos in women undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertility and Sterility 2008;90(6):2183–9. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.07.1739] - DOI - PubMed
Seli 2011
    1. Seli E, Bruce C, Botros L, Henson M, Roos P, Judge K, et al. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis of day 5 morphology grading and metabolomic Viability Score on predicting implantation outcome. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 2011;28(2):137‐44. [ 10.1007/s10815‐010‐9501‐9] - PMC - PubMed
Sfontouris 2015
    1. Sfontouris IA, Kolibianakis EM, Lainas GT, Navaratnarajah R, Tarlatzis BC, Lainas TG. Live birth rates using conventional in vitro fertilization compared to intracytoplasmic sperm injection in Bologna poor responders with a single oocyte retrieved. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 2015;32(5):691‐7. [DOI: 10.1007/s10815-015-0459-5] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Sheedy 2014
    1. Sheedy JR, Yoshida Y, Gardner DK. Direct injection mass spectrometry reveals unique metabolite profiles from spent human embryo culture media due to albumin source and pregnancy. Fertility and Sterility 2014;102(3 Suppl):e212‐3. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.07.718] - DOI
Singh 2007
    1. Singh R, Sinclair KD. Metabolomics: approaches to assessing oocyte and embryo quality. Theriogenology 2007;1(68 Suppl 1):S56‐62. [10.1016/j.theriogenology.2007.04.007] - PubMed
Siristatidis 2015
    1. Siristatidis CS, Vogiatzi P, Varounis C, Vaidakis D, Trivella M. Metabolomics for improving pregnancy outcomes in women undergoing assisted reproductive technologies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 9. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011872] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Uyar 2012
    1. Uyar A, Seli E. Embryo assessment strategies and their validation for clinical use: a critical analysis of methodology. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 2012;24(3):141‐50. [DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0b013e328352cd17] - DOI - PubMed
Uyar 2014
    1. Uyar A, Seli E. Metabolomic assessment of embryo viability. Seminars in Reproductive Medicine 2014;32(2):141‐52. [DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1363556] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Valckx 2012
    1. Valckx SD, Pauw I, Neubourg D, Inion I, Berth M, Fransen E, et al. BMI‐related metabolic composition of the follicular fluid of women undergoing assisted reproductive treatment and the consequences for oocyte and embryo quality. Human Reproduction 2012;27(12):3531‐9. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/des350] - DOI - PubMed
Varghese 2007
    1. Varghese AC, Goldberg E, Bhattacharyya AK, Agarwal A. Emerging technologies for the molecular study of infertility, and potential clinical applications. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 2007;15(4):451‐6. [DOI: 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60372-0] - DOI - PubMed
Vergouw 2010
    1. Vergouw CG. Non‐invasive metabolomic profiling to select single embryos for transfer in clinical IVF. Human Reproduction 2010;25(Supp 1):i1‐i339.
Vergouw 2011
    1. Vergouw CG, Botros LL, Judge K, Henson M, Roos P, Kostelijk EH, et al. Non‐invasive viability assessment of day 4 frozen‐thawed human embryos using Near Infrared Spectroscopy. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 2011;23(6):769–76. [10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.08.015] - PubMed
Vergouw 2014
    1. Vergouw CG, Heymans MW, Hardarson T, Sfontouris IA, Economou KA, Ahlström A, et al. No evidence that embryo selection by near‐infrared spectroscopy in addition to morphology is able to improve live birth rates: results from an individual patient data meta‐analysis. Human Reproduction 2014;29(3):455‐61. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/det456] - DOI - PubMed
Vilella 2013
    1. Vilella F, Ramirez LB, Simon C. Lipidomics as an emerging tool to predict endometrial receptivity. Fertility and Sterility 2013;99(4):1100‐6. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.12.026] - DOI - PubMed
Vouk 2012
    1. Vouk K, Hevir N, Ribic‐Pucelj M, Haarpaintner G, Scherb H, Osredkar J, et al. Discovery of phosphatidylcholines and sphingomyelins as biomarkers for ovarian endometriosis. Human Reproduction 2012;27(10):2955–65. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/des152] - DOI - PubMed
Wallace 2012
    1. Wallace M, Cottell E, Gibney MJ, McAuliffe FM, Wingfield M, Brennan L. An investigation into the relationship between the metabolic profile of follicular fluid, oocyte developmental potential, and implantation outcome. Fertility and Sterility 2012;97(5):1078‐84.e1‐8. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.01.122] - DOI - PubMed
Zegers‐Hochschild 2009
    1. Zegers‐Hochschild F, Adamson GD, Mouzon J, Ishihara O, Mansour R, Nygren K, et al. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology, World Health Organization. The International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART) and the World Health Organization (WHO) revised glossary on ART terminology, 2009. Human Reproduction 2009;24(11):2683‐7. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dep343] - DOI - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Siristatidis 2017
    1. Siristatidis CS, Sertedaki E, Vaidakis D. Metabolomics for improving pregnancy outcomes in women undergoing assisted reproductive technologies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 5. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011872.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources