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
. 2019 May 29;5(5):CD011320.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011320.pub4.

Time-lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction

Sarah Armstrong  1 , Priya Bhide, Vanessa Jordan, Allan Pacey, Jane Marjoribanks, Cindy Farquhar
Affiliations

Time-lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction

Sarah Armstrong et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Embryo incubation and assessment is a vital step in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Traditionally, embryo assessment has been achieved by removing embryos from a conventional incubator daily for quality assessment by an embryologist, under a microscope. In recent years time-lapse systems (TLS) have been developed which can take digital images of embryos at frequent time intervals. This allows embryologists, with or without the assistance of embryo selection software, to assess the quality of the embryos without physically removing them from the incubator.The potential advantages of a TLS include the ability to maintain a stable culture environment, therefore limiting the exposure of embryos to changes in gas composition, temperature, and movement. A TLS has the potential advantage of improving embryo selection for ART treatment by utilising additional information gained through continuously monitoring embryo development. Use of a TLS often adds significant extra cost to ART treatment.

Objectives: To determine the effect of a TLS compared to conventional embryo incubation and assessment on clinical outcomes in couples undergoing ART.

Search methods: We used standard methodology recommended by Cochrane. We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and two trials registers on 7 January 2019 and checked references of appropriate papers.

Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TLS, with or without embryo selection software, versus conventional incubation with morphological assessment; and TLS with embryo selection software versus TLS without embryo selection software among couples undergoing ART.

Data collection and analysis: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes were live birth or ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage and stillbirth, and cumulative live birth or ongoing pregnancy rate. The secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy and cumulative clinical pregnancy. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE methodology. We made the following comparisons.TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images versus conventional incubation and assessmentTLS utilising embryo selection software versus TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images TLS utilising embryo selection software versus conventional incubation and assessment MAIN RESULTS: We included nine RCTs (N = 2955 infertile couples). The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to low. The main limitations were high risk of bias in the included studies, imprecision, indirectness, and inconsistency. There were no data on cumulative live birth or ongoing pregnancy rate or cumulative clinical pregnancy rate.TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images versus conventional incubation and assessmentIt is unclear whether there is any difference between interventions in rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (odds ratio (OR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.23, 3 RCTs, N = 826, I2 = 33%, low-quality evidence) or in miscarriage rates (OR 1.90, 95% CI 0.99 to 3.61, 3 RCTs, N = 826, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the rate of live birth or ongoing pregnancy associated with conventional incubation and assessment is 35%, the rate with the use of TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images would be between 27% and 40%, and if the miscarriage rate with conventional incubation is 4%, the rate associated with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images would be between 4% and 14%. It is unclear whether there is a difference between the interventions in rates of stillbirth (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 7.49, 1 RCT, N = 76, low-quality evidence) or clinical pregnancy (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.41, 4 RCTs, N = 875, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence).TLS utilising embryo selection software versus TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS imagesAll findings for this comparison were very uncertain due to the very low-quality of the evidence. No data were available on live birth, but one RCT reported ongoing pregnancy. It is unclear whether there is any difference between the interventions in rates of ongoing pregnancy (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.20, 1 RCT, N = 163); miscarriage (OR 1.39, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.01, 2 RCTs, N = 463, I2 = 0%); or clinical pregnancy (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.42, 2 RCTs, N = 463, I2 = 0%). The evidence suggests that if the rate of ongoing pregnancy associated with TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images is 47%, the rate associated with TLS utilising embryo selection software would be between 22% and 52%, and if the miscarriage rate associated with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images is 5%, the rate associated with TLS utilising embryo selection software would be between 4% and 15%. No studies reported stillbirth.TLS utilising embryo selection software versus conventional incubation and assessmentThe findings for this comparison were also very uncertain due to the very low quality of the evidence. It is unclear whether there is any difference between the interventions in rates of live birth (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.36, 3 RCTs, N = 1617, I2 = 84%). There was very low-quality evidence that TLS might reduce miscarriage rates (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.89, 3 RCTs, N = 1617, I2 = 0%). It is unclear whether there is any difference between the interventions in rates of clinical pregnancy (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.16, 3 RCTs, N = 1617, I2 = 89%). The evidence suggests that if the rate of live birth associated with conventional incubation and assessment is 48%, the rate with TLS utilising embryo selection software would be between 46% and 55%, and if the miscarriage rate with conventional incubation and assessment is 11%, the rate associated with TLS would be between 5% and 10%. No stillbirths occurred in the only study reporting this outcome.

Authors' conclusions: There is insufficient good-quality evidence of differences in live birth or ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage and stillbirth, or clinical pregnancy to choose between TLS, with or without embryo selection software, and conventional incubation. As the evidence is of low or very low-quality, our findings should be interpreted with caution.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Dr Priya Bhide is a co‐investigator for the TILT trial, a randomised controlled trial of time‐lapse system versus undisturbed culture versus conventional incubation and assessment, which has recently obtained ethics approval. TILT is funded by the Barts Charity.

There are no other conflicts of interest for any of the review authors.

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram.
2
2
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
3
3
Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
4
4
Forest plot of comparison: 1 TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images versus conventional incubation and assessment (trial design 1), outcome: 1.1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy.
5
5
Forest plot of comparison: 2 TLS utilising embryo selection software versus TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images (trial design 2), outcome: 2.1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy.
6
6
Forest plot of comparison: 3 TLS utilising embryo selection software versus conventional incubation and assessment (trial design 3), outcome: 3.1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy.
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images versus conventional incubation and assessment (trial design 1), Outcome 1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy.
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images versus conventional incubation and assessment (trial design 1), Outcome 2 Miscarriage.
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images versus conventional incubation and assessment (trial design 1), Outcome 3 Stillbirth.
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images versus conventional incubation and assessment (trial design 1), Outcome 4 Clinical pregnancy.
2.1
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 TLS utilising embryo selection software versus TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images (trial design 2), Outcome 1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy.
2.2
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2 TLS utilising embryo selection software versus TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images (trial design 2), Outcome 2 Miscarriage.
2.3
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2 TLS utilising embryo selection software versus TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images (trial design 2), Outcome 3 Clinical pregnancy.
3.1
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3 TLS utilising embryo selection software versus conventional incubation and assessment (trial design 3), Outcome 1 Live birth or ongoing pregnancy.
3.2
3.2. Analysis
Comparison 3 TLS utilising embryo selection software versus conventional incubation and assessment (trial design 3), Outcome 2 Miscarriage.
3.3
3.3. Analysis
Comparison 3 TLS utilising embryo selection software versus conventional incubation and assessment (trial design 3), Outcome 3 Stillbirth.
3.4
3.4. Analysis
Comparison 3 TLS utilising embryo selection software versus conventional incubation and assessment (trial design 3), Outcome 4 Clinical pregnancy.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

References

References to studies included in this review

Barberet 2018 {published data only}
    1. Barberet J, Chammas J, Bruno C, Valot E, Vuillemin C, Jonval L, et al. Randomized controlled trial comparing embryo culture in two incubator systems: G185 K‐System versus EmbryoScope. Fertility and Sterility 2018;109(2):302‐9. - PubMed
Goodman 2016 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Goodman LR, Goldberg J, Falcone T, Austin C, Desai N. Does the addition of time‐lapse morphokinetics in the selection of embryos for transfer improve pregnancy rates? A randomized controlled trial. Fertility and Sterility 2016;105(2):275‐85. - PubMed
    1. Goodman LR, Goldberg JM, Falcone T, Austin C, Desai N. Does use of time‐lapse microscopy in the selection of embryos for transfer improve pregnancy rates? A randomized controlled trial. Fertility and Sterility 2015;104(3):e96. - PubMed
Kahraman 2013 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Kahraman S, Cetinkaya M, Pirkevi C, Yelke H, Kumtepe Y. Comparison of blastocyst development and cycle outcome in patients with eSET using either conventional or time lapse incubators. A prospective study of good prognosis patients. Journal of Reproductive and Stem Cell Biotechnology 2013;3(2):55‐61.
Kaser 2017 {published data only}
    1. Kaser DJ, Bormann CL, Missmer SA, Farland LV, Ginsburg ES, Racowsky C. A pilot randomized controlled trial of Day 3 single embryo transfer with adjunctive time‐lapse selection versus Day 5 single embryo transfer with or without adjunctive time‐lapse selection. Human Reproduction 2017;32(8):1598‐603. - PubMed
    1. Kaser DJ, Bormann CL, Missmer SA, Farland LV, Ginsburg ES, Racowsky C. EEVA pregnancy pilot study: a randomized controlled trial of single embryo transfer (SET) on day 3 or day 5 with or without time‐lapse imaging (TLI) selection. Fertility and Sterility 2016;106(3):e312.
Kovacs 2019 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Kovacs P, Matyas S, Forgacs V, Sajgo A, Molnar L, Pribenszky C. Non‐invasive embryo evaluation and selection using time‐lapse monitoring: results of a randomized controlled study. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 2019;233:58‐63. - PubMed
    1. Kovacs P, Matyas S, Forgacs V, Sajgo A, Rarosi F, Pribenszky C. Time‐lapse embryo selection for single blastocyst transfer ‐ results of a multicentre, prospective, randomized clinical trial. Fertility and Sterility 2013;100(3):S90.
    1. Kovacs P, Matyas SZ, Forgacs V, Reichart A, Rarosi F, Bernard A, et al. Can a composite score based on time lapse observation aid embryo selection for single embryo transfer; an interim report. Human Reproduction 2013;28(Suppl 1):169.
    1. Matyas SZ, Kovacs P, Forgacs V, Sajgo A, Pribenszky CS. Selection of single blastocyst for transfer using time‐lapse monitoring during in vitro fertilization in good prognosis patients: a randomized controlled trial. Human Reproduction 2015;30(Suppl 1):i119.
Park 2015 {published data only}
    1. Park H, Bergh C, Selleskog U, Thurin‐Kjellberg A, Lundin K. No benefit of culturing embryos in a closed system compared with a conventional incubator in terms of number of good quality embryos: results from an RCT. Human Reproduction 2015;30(2):268‐75. - PubMed
    1. Selleskog U, Park H, Bergh C, Lundin K. A prospective randomised controlled trial of the efficacy of using a closed time‐lapse system for embryo culture. Human Reproduction 2014;29(Suppl 1):i61.
Rubio 2014 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Ayerdi F, Rubio I, Galan A, Larreategui Z, Vidal C, Meseguer M. Clinical validation of embryo culture and selection by morphokinetic analysis; a randomized controlled trial by time‐lapse system. Human Fertility 2014;17(4):298. - PubMed
    1. Insua MF, Cobo A, Larreategui Z, Ferrando M, Remohi J, Meseguer M. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes of singleton newborns using time lapse monitoring. Fertility and Sterility 2015;104(Suppl 3):e212‐3. - PubMed
    1. Insua MF, Cobo AC, Larreategui Z, Ferrando M, Serra V, Meseguer M. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes of pregnancies conceived with embryos cultured in a time‐lapse monitoring system. Fertility and Sterility 2017;108(3):498‐504. - PubMed
    1. Perez S, Rubio I, Aparicio B, Beltran D, Garcia‐Laez V, Meseguer M. Prospective validation of a time‐lapse based algorithm for embryo selection. Fertility and Sterility 2014;102(Suppl 3):e322.
    1. Rubio I, Galan A, Larreategui Z, Ayerdi F, Bellver J, Herrero J, et al. Clinical validation of embryo culture and selection by morphokinetic analysis: a randomized, controlled trial of the EmbryoScope. Fertility and Sterility 2014;10(14):738. - PubMed
Wu 2016 {published data only}
    1. Wu Y‐G, Lazzaroni‐Tealdi E, Wang Q, Zhang L, Barad DH, Kushnir VA, et al. Different effectiveness of closed embryo culture system with time‐lapse imaging (Embryoscope TM) in comparison to standard manual embryology in good and poor prognosis patients: a prospectively randomized pilot study. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology 2016;14(49):1‐11. - PMC - PubMed
Yang 2018 {published data only}
    1. Yang L, Cai S, Zhang S, Kong X, Gu Y, Lu C, et al. Single embryo transfer by Day 3 time‐lapse selection versus Day 5 conventional morphological selection: a randomized, open‐label, non‐inferiority trial. Human Reproduction 2018;33(5):869‐76. - PubMed
    1. Yang L, Kong X, Zhang S, Dai J, Gong F, Lu G, et al. Single embryo transfer on cleavage‐stage(D3) using timelapse selection VS on blastocyst(D5) using traditional morphological selection in patients with good prognosis: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Human Reproduction 2017;32(Suppl 1):i102‐3.

References to studies excluded from this review

Adamson 2016 {published data only}
    1. Adamson GD, Abusief ME, Palao L, Witmer J, Palao LM, Gvakharia M. Improved implantation rates of day 3 embryo transfers with the use of an automated time‐lapse‐enabled test to aid in embryo selection. Fertility and Sterility 2016;105(2):369‐75. - PubMed
Alhelou 2018 {unpublished data only}
    1. Alhelou Y, Mat Adenan NA, Ali J. Embryo culture conditions are significantly improved during uninterrupted incubation: a randomized controlled trial. Reproductive Biology 2018;18:40‐5. [DOI: 10.1016/j.repbio.2017.12.003] - DOI - PubMed
Arnesen 2014 {published data only}
    1. Arnesen RE, McEvoy K, Critchlow D, Hunter HR, Lloyd AE, Wilson Y, et al. Comparison of clinical pregnancy rates following day 3 embryo transfer using a time‐lapse incubator compared to a flatbed incubator. Human Fertility 2014;17(4):299.
Belles 2014 {published data only}
    1. Belles M, Costa‐Borges N, Molina JM, Ballesteros A, Pellicer A, Florensa M, et al. Embryo quality and clinical outcomes using EmbryoscopeTM, MincTM and HeracellTM 150i incubators: preliminary results from a randomized study with donor oocytes. Human Reproduction 2014;29(Suppl 1):i160.
Cruz 2011 {published data only}
    1. Cruz M, Gadea B, Garrido N, Pedersen KS, Martinez M, Perez‐Cano I, et al. Embryo quality, blastocyst and ongoing pregnancy rates in oocyte donation patients whose embryos were monitored by time‐lapse imaging. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 2011;28(7):569‐73. - PMC - PubMed
Freour 2014 {published data only}
    1. Freour T, Basile N, Barriere P, Meseguer M. Systematic review on clinical outcomes following selection of human preimplantation embryos with time‐lapse monitoring. Human Reproduction Update 2015;21(1):153‐4. - PubMed
Hardarson 2016 {published data only}
    1. Hardarson T, Bungum M, Conaghan J, Meintjes M, Chantilis SJ, Molnar L, et al. Noninferiority, randomized, controlled trial comparing embryo development using media developed for sequential or undisturbed culture in a time‐lapse setup. Fertility and Sterility 2015;104(6):1452‐9. - PubMed
Huang 2014 {published data only}
    1. Huang G, Wu LH. Randomized study assessing the impact of Primo Vision time‐lapse embryo monitoring system (tlm) on embryo culture and selection. Human Reproduction 2014;29(Suppl 1):i177.
Ingerslev 2011 {published data only}
    1. Ingerslev HJ, Kirkegaard K, Hindkjaer J, Grondahl ML, Kesmodel US, Agerholm I. Cleavage rates of human embryos randomized to culture in conventional incubator and culture in a time lapse instrument. Human Reproduction 2011;26(Suppl 1):P164.
Kaser 2014 {published data only}
    1. Kaser DJ, Racowsky C. Clinical outcomes following selection of human preimplantation embryos with time‐lapse monitoring: a systematic review. Human Reproduction Update 2014;20(5):617‐31. - PubMed
Kirkegaard 2012 {published data only}
    1. Kirkegaard K, Hindkjaer JJ, Grondahl ML, Kesmodel US, Ingerslec HJ. A randomized clinical trial comparing embryo culture in a conventional incubator with a time‐lapse incubator. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 2012;29(6):565‐72. - PMC - PubMed
Kirkegaard 2014 {published data only}
    1. Kirkegaard K, Ingerslev HJ. Clinical outcomes following selection of human preimplantation embryos with time‐lapse monitoring: a systematic review. Human Reproduction Update 2014;20(5):617‐31. - PubMed
Kirkegaard 2015 {published data only}
    1. Kirkegaard K, Ahlstrom A, Ingerslev HJ, Hardson T. Choosing the best embryo by time lapse versus standard morphology. Fertility and Sterility 2015;103(2):323‐32. - PubMed
Loewke 2012 {published data only}
    1. Loewke K, Moussavi F, Maddah M, Ivani K, Behr B, Suraj V. Development and validation of an automated computer vision algorithm for real‐time embryo viability prediction. Fertility and Sterility 2012;98(Suppl 3):288.
Lowen 2017 {published data only}
    1. Lowen PK, Kermack AJ, Wellstead SJ, Calder PC, Houghton FD, Macklon NS. A prospective randomised trial comparing embryo development in the MINC incubator versus the EmbryoScope incubator. Human Reproduction 2017;32(Suppl 1):i210.
Mara 2010 {published data only}
    1. Mara C, Nicols G, Inmaculada P‐C, Niels R, Manuel M, Marcos M. Comparative study of embryo quality, blastocyst and ongoing pregnancy rates in oocyte donation patients sharing EmbryoScope and standard incubator. Fertility and Sterility 2010;94(4 Suppl 1):s78.
Meseguer 2012 {published data only}
    1. Meseguer M. Looking at embryo development ‐ clinical results from time‐lapse RCT. Human Reproduction 2012;27(Suppl 2):ii36.
Nakahara 2010 {published data only}
    1. Nakahara T, Iwase A, Goto M, Harata T, Suzuki M, Ienaga M, et al. Evaluation of the safety of time‐lapse observations for human embryos. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 2010;27(2‐3):93‐6. - PMC - PubMed
Polanski 2014 {published data only}
    1. Polanski LT, Coelho Neto MA, Nastri CO, Navarro PA, Ferriani RA, Raine‐Fenning N, et al. Time‐lapse embryo imaging for improving reproductive outcomes: systematic review and meta‐analysis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 2014;44(4):394‐401. - PubMed
Siristatidis 2015 {published data only}
    1. Siristatidis C, Komitopoulou MA, Makris A, Sialakouma A, Botzaki M, Mastorakos G, et al. Morphokinetic parameters of early embryo development via time lapse monitoring and their effect on embryo selection and ICSI outcomes: a prospective cohort study. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 2015;32(4):563‐70. - PMC - PubMed
Wu 2015 {published data only}
    1. Wu Y, Lazzaroni‐Tealdi E, Wang Q, Albertini DF, Barad DH, Kushnir VA, et al. Randomized comparison of embryo development in closed time‐lapse photography system with traditional standard embryology culture with day‐3 embryo transfers. Fertility and Sterility 2015;104(Suppl 3):e319.
Yang 2014 {published data only}
    1. Yang Z, Zhang J, Salem S, Liu X, Kuang Y, Salem R, et al. Selection of competent blastocysts for transfer by combining time‐lapse monitoring and array CGH testing for patients undergoing preimplantation genetic screening: a prospective study with sibling oocytes. BMC Medical Genomics 2014;7(38):1‐13. - PMC - PubMed

References to studies awaiting assessment

Hulme 2014 {published data only}
    1. Hulme D, Jenner LJ, Campbell A, Fishel S. A randomised controlled comparison of clinical outcome, following time lapse and standard incubation. Human Fertility. Conference: ACE 9th Biennial Conference 2014;17.

References to ongoing studies

ChiCTR1800017127 {published data only}
    1. ChiCTR1800017127. A prospective randomized controlled study of cleavage embryo transplantation using dynamic observation techniques. www.chictr.org.cn/showprojen.aspx?proj=29089 (registered 16 January 2016).
ChiCTR‐IIR‐16008758 {published data only}
    1. ChiCTR‐IIR‐16008758. A phase IV, prospective, randomized, controlled, multiple‐center study to compare the implantation rate of embryos cultured and assessed in GERI? undisturbed incubation system vs conventional open incubator system. www.chictr.org.cn/showprojen.aspx?proj=14790 (registered 1 July 2016).
ISRCTN17792989 {published data only}
    1. ISRCTN17792989. A pragmatic, multi‐centre, three‐arm randomised controlled trial to assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of time lapse imaging in in‐vitro fertilisation treatment (also known as the TILT study). www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN17792989 (first received 4 April 2018).
Khan 2018 [pers comm] {published data only}
    1. Khan K. [personal communication]. Conversation with: Sarah Armstrong (University of Sheffield, UK) March 2018.
NCT01760278 {unpublished data only}
    1. NCT01760278. Assessment of implantation potential of embryos by time‐lapse technology (Embryoscope). www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01760278 (first received 4 January 2013).
NCT02222831 {unpublished data only}
    1. NCT02222831. Optimizing IVF treatment ‐ the impact of time‐lapse culture and preimplantation factor (PIF) on embryo development. www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02222831 (first received 21 August 2014).
NCT02417441 {unpublished data only}
    1. NCT02417441. TiLE (Time Lapse Eeva) Clinical Trial (TiLE). www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02417441 (first received 15 April 2015).
NCT02657811 {unpublished data only}
    1. NCT02657811. Time‐lapse incubation for embryo culture ‐ morphokinetics and environmental stability. www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02657811 (first received 18 January 2016).
NCT02852356 {unpublished data only}
    1. NCT02852356. Validation study using a time‐lapse morphometry MIRI imaging incubator (TiMMI). www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02852356 (first received 2 August 2016).
NCT02965222 {unpublished data only}
    1. NCT02965222. A study select top‐grade embryo by time‐lapse imaging. www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02965222 (first received 16 November 2016).
NCT03164551 {unpublished data only}
    1. NCT03164551. TICON‐Day 3, Time lapse versus conventional method in day 3 embryo culture and assessment (TICON). www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03164551 (first received 23 May 2017).
NCT03445923 {unpublished data only}
    1. NCT03445923. Can time‐lapse parameters be used to predict pregnancy of human embryos?. www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03445923 (first received 26 February 2018).
NTR5423 {published data only}
    1. NTR5423. Time‐lapse monitoring in IVF and ICSI patients [Embryo SELECtion using TIme‐lapse MOnitoring in IVF and ICSI patients]. www.trialregister.nl/trial/5314 (registered 8 September 2015).

Additional references

ACART
    1. ACART. Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology: Guiding Principles. www.acart.health.govt.nz/about‐us (accessed 30 June 2014).
Alpha & ESHRE SIG 2011
    1. Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine and ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology. The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Human Reproduction 2011;26(6):1270‐83. [1472‐6483] - PubMed
Armstrong 2018
    1. Armstrong S, Bhide P, Jordan V, Pacey A, Farquhar C. Time‐lapse systems for ART. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 2018;36(3):288‐9. - PubMed
Campbell 2000
    1. Campbell M, Fitzpatrick R, Haines A, Kinmouth AL, Sandercock P, Spiegelhalter D, et al. Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. BMJ 2000;321(7262):694‐6. - PMC - PubMed
Chen 2017
    1. Chen M, Wei S, Hu J, Yuan J, Liu F. Does time‐lapse imaging have favorable results for embryo incubation and selection compared with conventional methods in clinical in vitro fertilization? A meta‐analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials. PLOS ONE 2017;12(6):e0178720. - PMC - PubMed
Conaghan 2013
    1. Conaghan J, Chen AA, Willman SP, Ivani K, Chenette PE, Boostanfar R, et al. Improving embryo selection using a computer‐automated time‐lapse image analysis test plus day 3 morphology: results from a prospective multicenter trial. Fertility and Sterility 2013; Vol. 100, issue 2:412‐9.e5. [0015‐0282] - PubMed
Covidence [Computer program]
    1. Veritas Health Innovation. Covidence. Version accessed 10 January 2019. Melbourne, Australia: Veritas Health Innovation.
Cummins 1986
    1. Cummins JM, Breen TM, Harrison KL, Shaw JM, Wilson LM, Hennessey JF. A formula for scoring human embryo growth rates in in vitro fertilization: its value in predicting pregnancy and in comparison with visual estimates of embryo quality. Journal of In Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer 1986;3(5):284‐95. - PubMed
Finn 2010
    1. Finn A, Scott L, O’Leary T, Davies D, Hill J. Sequential embryo scoring as a predictor of aneuploidy in poor‐prognosis patients. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 2010;21(3):381‐90. [1472‐6483] - PubMed
GRADEpro GDT 2015 [Computer program]
    1. McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime). GRADEpro GDT. Version accessed 9 May 2018. Hamilton (ON): McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime), 2015.
Harper 2012
    1. Harper J, Magli MC, Lundin K, Barratt CL, Brison D. When and how should new technology be introduced into the IVF laboratory?. Human Reproduction 2012;27(2):303‐13. - PubMed
HFEA
    1. HFEA. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. www.hfea.gov.uk/ (accessed 30 June 2014).
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Meseguer 2012a
    1. Meseguer M, Rubio I, Cruz M, Basile N, Marcos J, Requena A. Embryo incubation and selection in a time‐lapse monitoring system improves pregnancy outcome compared with a standard incubator: a retrospective cohort study. Fertility and Sterility 2012;98(6):1481‐9.e10. [0015‐0282] - PubMed
Neuber 2003
    1. Neuber E, Rinaudo P, Trimarchi JR, Sakkas D. Sequential assessment of individually cultured human embryos as an indicator of subsequent good quality blastocyst development. Human Reproduction 2003;18(6):1307‐12. - PubMed
Neuber 2006
    1. Neuber E, Mahutte NG, Arici A, Sakkas D. Sequential embryo assessment outperforms investigator‐driven morphological assessment at selecting a good quality blastocyst. Fertility and Sterility 2006;85(3):794‐6. [0015‐0282] - PubMed
Petersen 2016
    1. Petersen BM, Boel M, Montag M, Gardner DK. Development of a generally applicable morphokinetic algorithm capable of predicting the implantation potential of embryos transferred on Day 3. Human Reproduction 2016;31(10):2231–44. - PMC - PubMed
Pribenszky 2017
    1. Pribenszky C, Nilselid A‐M, Montag M. Time‐lapse culture with morphokinetic embryo selection improves pregnancy and live birth chances and reduces early pregnancy loss: a meta‐analysis. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 2017;35(5):511‐20. [DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.06.022] - DOI - PubMed
Scott 2003
    1. Scott L. The biological basis of noninvasive strategies for selection of human oocytes and embryos. Human Reproduction Update 2003;9(3):237‐49. - PubMed
Scott 2003a
    1. Scott L. Pronuclear scoring as a predictor of embryo development. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 2003;6(2):201‐14. - PubMed
Shoukir 1997
    1. Shoukir Y, Campana A, Farley T, Sakkas D. Early cleavage of in‐vitro fertilized human embryos to the 2‐cell stage: a novel indicator of embryo quality and viability. Human Reproduction 1997;12(7):1531‐6. - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Armstrong 2014
    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 2014, Issue 9. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011320] - DOI - 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
Armstrong 2018a
    1. Armstrong S, Bhide P, Jordan V, Pacey A, Farquhar C. Time‐lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2018, Issue 5. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011320.pub3] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types