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
. 2020 Sep 8;9(9):CD005291.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005291.pub3.

Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (abnormal number of chromosomes) in in vitro fertilisation

Simone Cornelisse  1 , Miriam Zagers  2 , Elena Kostova  2 , Kathrin Fleischer  1   3 , Madelon van Wely  2 , Sebastiaan Mastenbroek  2
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (abnormal number of chromosomes) in in vitro fertilisation

Simone Cornelisse et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: In in vitro fertilisation (IVF) with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), selection of the most competent embryo(s) for transfer is based on morphological criteria. However, many women do not achieve a pregnancy even after 'good quality' embryo transfer. One of the presumed causes is that such morphologically normal embryos have an abnormal number of chromosomes (aneuploidies). Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A), formerly known as preimplantation genetic screening (PGS), was therefore developed as an alternative method to select embryos for transfer in IVF. In PGT-A, the polar body or one or a few cells of the embryo are obtained by biopsy and tested. Only polar bodies and embryos that show a normal number of chromosomes are transferred. The first generation of PGT-A, using cleavage-stage biopsy and fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) for the genetic analysis, was demonstrated to be ineffective in improving live birth rates. Since then, new PGT-A methodologies have been developed that perform the biopsy procedure at other stages of development and use different methods for genetic analysis. Whether or not PGT-A improves IVF outcomes and is beneficial to patients has remained controversial.

Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PGT-A in women undergoing an IVF treatment.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and two trials registers in September 2019 and checked the references of appropriate papers.

Selection criteria: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting data on clinical outcomes in participants undergoing IVF with PGT-A versus IVF without PGT-A were eligible for inclusion.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted study data. The primary outcome was the cumulative live birth rate (cLBR). Secondary outcomes were live birth rate (LBR) after the first embryo transfer, miscarriage rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, multiple pregnancy rate, proportion of women reaching an embryo transfer, and mean number of embryos per transfer.

Main results: We included 13 trials involving 2794 women. The quality of the evidence ranged from low to moderate. The main limitations were imprecision, inconsistency, and risk of publication bias. IVF with PGT-A versus IVF without PGT-A with the use of genome-wide analyses Polar body biopsy One trial used polar body biopsy with array comparative genomic hybridisation (aCGH). It is uncertain whether the addition of PGT-A by polar body biopsy increases the cLBR compared to IVF without PGT-A (odds ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.66, 1 RCT, N = 396, low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that for the observed cLBR of 24% in the control group, the chance of live birth following the results of one IVF cycle with PGT-A is between 17% and 34%. It is uncertain whether the LBR after the first embryo transfer improves with PGT-A by polar body biopsy (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.79, 1 RCT, N = 396, low-quality evidence). PGT-A with polar body biopsy may reduce miscarriage rate (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.88, 1 RCT, N = 396, low-quality evidence). No data on ongoing pregnancy rate were available. The effect of PGT-A by polar body biopsy on improving clinical pregnancy rate is uncertain (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.16, 1 RCT, N = 396, low-quality evidence). Blastocyst stage biopsy One trial used blastocyst stage biopsy with next-generation sequencing. It is uncertain whether IVF with the addition of PGT-A by blastocyst stage biopsy increases cLBR compared to IVF without PGT-A, since no data were available. It is uncertain if LBR after the first embryo transfer improves with PGT-A with blastocyst stage biopsy (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.27, 1 RCT, N = 661, low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether PGT-A with blastocyst stage biopsy reduces miscarriage rate (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.54, 1 RCT, N = 661, low-quality evidence). No data on ongoing pregnancy rate or clinical pregnancy rate were available. IVF with PGT-A versus IVF without PGT-A with the use of FISH for the genetic analysis Eleven trials were included in this comparison. It is uncertain whether IVF with addition of PGT-A increases cLBR (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.01, 1 RCT, N = 408, low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that for the observed average cLBR of 29% in the control group, the chance of live birth following the results of one IVF cycle with PGT-A is between 12% and 29%. PGT-A performed with FISH probably reduces live births after the first transfer compared to the control group (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.91, 10 RCTs, N = 1680, I² = 54%, moderate-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that for the observed average LBR per first transfer of 31% in the control group, the chance of live birth after the first embryo transfer with PGT-A is between 16% and 29%. There is probably little or no difference in miscarriage rate between PGT-A and the control group (OR 1.03, 95%, CI 0.75 to 1.41; 10 RCTs, N = 1680, I² = 16%; moderate-quality evidence). The addition of PGT-A may reduce ongoing pregnancy rate (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.90, 5 RCTs, N = 1121, I² = 60%, low-quality evidence) and probably reduces clinical pregnancies (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.81, 5 RCTs, N = 1131; I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence).

Authors' conclusions: There is insufficient good-quality evidence of a difference in cumulative live birth rate, live birth rate after the first embryo transfer, or miscarriage rate between IVF with and IVF without PGT-A as currently performed. No data were available on ongoing pregnancy rates. The effect of PGT-A on clinical pregnancy rate is uncertain. Women need to be aware that it is uncertain whether PGT-A with the use of genome-wide analyses is an effective addition to IVF, especially in view of the invasiveness and costs involved in PGT-A. PGT-A using FISH for the genetic analysis is probably harmful. The currently available evidence is insufficient to support PGT-A in routine clinical practice.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02268786 NCT02223221 NCT01946945 NCT01977144 NCT02032264 NCT02353364 NCT02941965 NCT03118141 NCT03173885 NCT03214185 NCT03371745.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Simone Cornelisse: no conflicts to declare. Miriam Zagers: no conflicts to declare. Elena Kostova: no conflicts to declare. Kathrin Fleischer: no conflicts to declare. Madelon van Wely: no conflicts to declare. Sebastiaan Mastenbroek has performed a randomised controlled trial on the effect of PGT‐A in IVF in women aged 35 and over (Mastenbroek 2007). This was an independent trial funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development.

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: 1 IVF with PGT‐A versus IVF without PGT‐A with the use of genome‐wide analyses, outcome: 1.1 Cumulative live birth rate after the first treatment cycle, per woman randomised.
5
5
Forest plot of comparison: 1 IVF with PGT‐A versus IVF without PGT‐A with the use of genome‐wide analyses, outcome: 1.2 live birth rate after the first embryo transfer per woman randomised.
6
6
Forest plot of comparison: 1 IVF without PGT‐A versus IVF with PGT‐A with the use of genome‐wide analyses, outcome: 1.3 Miscarriage rate per woman randomised.
7
7
Forest plot of comparison: 2 IVF with PGT‐A versus IVF without PGT‐A with the use of FISH for the genetic analysis, outcome: 2.1 Cumulative live birth rate after the first treatment cycle, per woman randomised.
8
8
Forest plot of comparison: 2 IVF with PGT‐A versus IVF without PGT‐A with the use of FISH for the genetic analysis, outcome: 2.2 live birth rate after the first embryo transfer per woman randomised.
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1: IVF with PGT‐A versus IVF without PGT‐A with the use of genome‐wide analyses, Outcome 1: Cumulative live birth rate after the first treatment cycle, per woman randomised
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1: IVF with PGT‐A versus IVF without PGT‐A with the use of genome‐wide analyses, Outcome 2: Live birth rate after the first embryo transfer per woman randomised
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1: IVF with PGT‐A versus IVF without PGT‐A with the use of genome‐wide analyses, Outcome 3: Miscarriage rate per woman randomised
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1: IVF with PGT‐A versus IVF without PGT‐A with the use of genome‐wide analyses, Outcome 4: Miscarriage rate per clinical pregnancy
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1: IVF with PGT‐A versus IVF without PGT‐A with the use of genome‐wide analyses, Outcome 5: Clinical pregnancy per woman randomised
1.6
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1: IVF with PGT‐A versus IVF without PGT‐A with the use of genome‐wide analyses, Outcome 6: Multiple pregnancy per woman randomised
1.7
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1: IVF with PGT‐A versus IVF without PGT‐A with the use of genome‐wide analyses, Outcome 7: Multiple pregnancy rate per live birth
1.8
1.8. Analysis
Comparison 1: IVF with PGT‐A versus IVF without PGT‐A with the use of genome‐wide analyses, Outcome 8: Proportion of women reaching embryo transfer per woman randomised
1.9
1.9. Analysis
Comparison 1: IVF with PGT‐A versus IVF without PGT‐A with the use of genome‐wide analyses, Outcome 9: Mean number of embryos transferred per transfer
2.1
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2: IVF with PGT‐A versus IVF without PGT‐A with the use of FISH for the genetic analysis, Outcome 1: Cumulative live birth rate after the first treatment cycle, per woman randomised
2.2
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2: IVF with PGT‐A versus IVF without PGT‐A with the use of FISH for the genetic analysis, Outcome 2: Live birth rate after the first embryo transfer per woman randomised
2.3
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2: IVF with PGT‐A versus IVF without PGT‐A with the use of FISH for the genetic analysis, Outcome 3: Miscarriage rate per woman randomised
2.4
2.4. Analysis
Comparison 2: IVF with PGT‐A versus IVF without PGT‐A with the use of FISH for the genetic analysis, Outcome 4: Miscarriage rate per clinical pregnancy
2.5
2.5. Analysis
Comparison 2: IVF with PGT‐A versus IVF without PGT‐A with the use of FISH for the genetic analysis, Outcome 5: Ongoing pregnancy rate per woman randomised
2.6
2.6. Analysis
Comparison 2: IVF with PGT‐A versus IVF without PGT‐A with the use of FISH for the genetic analysis, Outcome 6: Clinical pregnancy per woman randomised
2.7
2.7. Analysis
Comparison 2: IVF with PGT‐A versus IVF without PGT‐A with the use of FISH for the genetic analysis, Outcome 7: Multiple pregnancy rate per woman randomised
2.8
2.8. Analysis
Comparison 2: IVF with PGT‐A versus IVF without PGT‐A with the use of FISH for the genetic analysis, Outcome 8: Multiple pregnancy rate per live birth
2.9
2.9. Analysis
Comparison 2: IVF with PGT‐A versus IVF without PGT‐A with the use of FISH for the genetic analysis, Outcome 9: Proportion of women reaching embryo transfer per woman randomised
2.10
2.10. Analysis
Comparison 2: IVF with PGT‐A versus IVF without PGT‐A with the use of FISH for the genetic analysis, Outcome 10: Mean number of embryos transferred per transfer
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

References

References to studies included in this review

Blockeel 2008 {published data only}
    1. Blockeel C, Schutyser V, De Vos A, Verpoest W, De Vos M, Staessen C, et al. Prospectively randomized controlled trial of PGS in IVF/ICSI patients with poor implantation. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 2008;17(6):848-54. - PubMed
Debrock 2010 {published data only}
    1. Debrock S, Melotte C, Spiessens C, Peeraer K, Vanneste E, Meeuwis L, et al. Preimplantation genetic screening for aneuploidy of embryos after in vitro fertilization in women aged at least 35 years: a prospective randomized trial. Fertility and Sterility 2010;93(2):364-73. - PubMed
Hardarson 2008 {published data only}
    1. Hardarson T, Hanson C, Lundin K, Hillensjo T, Nilsson L, Stevic J, et al. Preimplantation genetic screening in women of advanced maternal age caused a decrease in clinical pregnancy rate: a randomized controlled trial. Human Reproduction 2008;23(12):2806-12. - PubMed
Jansen 2008 {published data only}
    1. Jansen RP, Bowman MC, De boer KA, Leigh DA, Lieberman DB, McArthur SJ. What next for preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)? Experience with blastocyst biopsy and testing for aneuploidy. Human Reproduction 2008;23(7):1476-8. - PubMed
Mastenbroek 2007 {published data only}
    1. Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, Van Echten-Arends J, Sikkema-Raddatz B, Korevaar JC, Verhoeve HR, et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. New England Jounal of Medicine 2007;537(1):9-17. - PubMed
Meyer 2009 {published data only}
    1. Meyer LR, Klipstein S, Hazlett WD, Nasta T, Mangan P, Karande VC. A prospective randomized controlled trial of preimplantation genetic screening in the "good prognosis" patient. Fertility and Sterility 2009;91(5):1731-8. - PubMed
Munné 2019 {published data only}
    1. Munné S, Kaplan B, Frattarelli JL, Child T, Nakhuda G, Shamma FN, et al, on behalf of the STAR study group. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy versus morphology as selection criteria for single frozen-thawed embryo transfer in good-prognosis patients: a multicenter randomized clinical trial. Fertility and Sterility December 2019;112(6):1071-79. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.07.1346] - DOI - PubMed
Rubio 2013 {published data only}
    1. Rubio C, Bellver J, Rodrigo L, Bosch E, Mercader A, Vidal C, et al. Preimplantation genetic screening using fluorescence in situ hybridization in patients with repetitive implantation failure and advanced maternal age: two randomized trials. Fertility and sterility 2013;99(5):1400-7. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Schoolcraft 2009 {published data only}
    1. Schoolcraft WB, Katz-Jaffe MG, Stevens J, Rawlins M, Munne S. Preimplantation aneuploidy testing for infertile patients of advanced maternal age. Fertility and Sterility 2009;92(1):157-62. - PubMed
Staessen 2004 {published data only}
    1. Staessen C, Platteau P, Van Assche E, Michiels A, Tournaye H, Camus M, et al. Comparison of blastocyst transfer with or without preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening in couples with advanced maternal age: a prospective randomised controlled trial. Human Reproduction 2004;19(12):2849-58. - PubMed
Staessen 2008 {published data only}
    1. Staessen C, Verpoest W, Donoso P, Haentjens P, Van der Elst J, Liebaers I, et al. Preimplantation genetic screening does not improve delivery rate in women under the age of 36 following single-embryo transfer. Human Reproduction 2008;23(12):2818-25. - PubMed
Verpoest 2018 {published data only}
    1. Verpoest W, Staessen C, Bossuyt PM, Goossens V, Altarescu G, Bonduelle M, et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy by microarray analysis of polar bodies in advanced maternal age: a randomized clinical trial. Human Reproduction 2018;33(9):1767-76. [PMID: ] - PubMed
Werlin 2003 {published data only}
    1. Werlin L, Rodi I, DeCherney A, Marello E, Hill D, Munné S. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis as both a therapeutic and diagnostic tool in assisted reproductive technology. Fertility and Sterility 2003;80(2):467-8. [DOI: 10.1016/S0015-0282(03)00605-8] - DOI - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Forman 2013 {published data only}
    1. Forman EJ, Hong KH, Ferry KM, Tao X, Taylor D, Levy B, et al. In vitro fertilization with single euploid blastocyst transfer: a randomized controlled trial. Fertility and Sterility 2013;100(1):100-7. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.02.056] - DOI - PubMed
Forman 2014 {published data only}
    1. Forman EJ, Hong KH, Franasiak JM, Scott RT Jr. Obstetrical and neonatal outcomes from the BEST Trial: single embryo transfer with aneuploidy screening improves outcomes after in vitro fertilization without compromising delivery rate. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2014;210(2):157-160. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.10.016] - DOI - PubMed
Gianaroli 1997 {published data only}
    1. Gianaroli L, Magli MC, Ferraretti AP, Fiorentine A, Garrisi J, Munne S. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis increases the preimplantation rate in human in vitro fertilization by avoiding the transfer of chromosomally abnormal embryos. Fertility and Sterility 1997;68(6):1128-31. - PubMed
Gianaroli 1999 {published data only}
    1. Gianaroli L, Magli MC, Ferraretti AP, Munne S. Preimplantation diagnosis for aneuploidies in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization with a poor prognosis: identification of the categories for which it should be proposed. Fertility and Sterility 1999;72(5):837-8. - PubMed
Mersereau 2008 {published data only}
    1. Mersereau JE, Pergament E, Zhang X, Milad MP. Preimplantation genetic screening to improve in vitro fertilization pregnancy rates: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Fertility and Sterility 2008;90(4):1287-9. - PubMed
Moayeri 2016 {published data only}
    1. Moayeri M, Saeidi H, Modarresi MH, Hashemi M. The effect of preimplantation genetic screening on implantation rate in women over 35 years of age. Cell Journal 2016;18(1):13-20. - PMC - PubMed
NCT02265614 {published data only}
    1. NCT02265614. PGS Using Microarray in IVF Patients With Repeated Implantation Failure [Preimplantation Genetic Screening (PGS) Using Microarray Technique: Method to Select the Embryo With the Greatest Chance for Successful Implantation During in Vitro Fertilization in Couples With a History of Unsuccessful IVF Attempts]. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02265614 16-10-2014.
Ozgur 2019 {published data only}
    1. Ozgur K, Berkkanoglu M, Bulut H, Yoruk GD, Candurmaz NN, Coetzee K. Single best euploid versus single best unknown-ploidy blastocyst frozen embryo transfers: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 2019;36(4):629-36. [DOI: 10.1007/s10815-018-01399-1] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Rubio 2017 {published data only}
    1. Rubio C, Bellver J, Rodrigo L, Castillón G, Guillén A, Vidal C, et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidies in advanced maternal age: a randomized, controlled study. Fertility and Sterility 2017;107(5):1145-1146. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.03.011.] - DOI - PubMed
Scott 2013 {published data only}
    1. Scott RT, Upham KM, Forman EJ, Hong KH, Scott KL, Taylor D, et al. Blastocyst biopsy with comprehensive chromosome screening and fresh embryo transfer significantly increases in vitro fertilization implantation and delivery rates: a randomized controlled trial. Fertility and Sterility 2013;100(3):697-703. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.04.035] - DOI - PubMed
Stevens 2004 {published data only}
    1. Stevens J, Wale P, Surrey ES, Schoolcraft WB. Is aneuploidy screening for patients aged 35 or over beneficial? A prospective randomized trial. Fertility and Sterility 2004;82(Suppl 2):249. [DOI: ]
Yang 2012 {published data only}
    1. Yang Z, Liu J, Collins GS, Salem SA, Liu X, Lyle SS, et al. Selection of single blastocysts for fresh transfer via standard morphology assessment alone and with array CGH for good prognosis IVF patients: results from a randomized pilot study. Molecular Cytogenetics 2012;5(1):24. [DOI: 10.1186/1755-8166-5-24] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

References to studies awaiting assessment

NCT02223221 {unpublished data only}
    1. NCT02223221. Effects of PGS in Infertile Female Patients With RPL [Effects of Preimplantation Genetic Screening for Aneuploidies in Infertile Female Patients With Recurrent Spontaneous Abortion History]. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02223221 (first received August 2014).

References to ongoing studies

NCT01946945 {unpublished data only}
    1. NCT01946945. Comparison of Standard ART Practice vs. Trophectoderm Biopsy and Whole Chromosome Analysis [Comparison of Standard ART Practice vs. Trophectoderm Biopsy, Whole Chromosome Analysis by Next Generation Sequencing, and Replacement of a Single Euploid Embryo]. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01946945 (first received 20 September 2013).
NCT01977144 {unpublished data only}
    1. NCT01977144. Solaire [Screening of Low Responders for Aneuploidy to Improve Reproductive Efficiency]. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01977144 (first received 6 November 2013).
NCT02032264 {unpublished data only}
    1. NCT02032264. Nexgen [Evaluation of the Efficacy of Next Generation Sequencing in Predicting Embryonic Karyotype and Subsequent Pregnancy Outcomes in in Vitro Fertilization Cycles (IVF)]. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02032264 (first received 10 January 2014).
NCT02353364 {unpublished data only}
    1. NCT02353364. Blastocyst Euploidy Assessment and Conditioned embryO traNsfer (BEACON) [Prospective Randomised Control Trial of Blastocyst Euploidy Assessment and Conditioned Embryo Transfer for Infertility Patients of Advanced Maternal Age]. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02353364 (first received 2 February 2015).
NCT02868528 {unpublished data only}
    1. NCT02868528. Prospective Randomized Controlled Study of Preimplantation Genetic Screening With Next Generation Sequencing Technology on Advanced Age Women [A Study of Preimplantation Genetic Screening With Next Generation Sequencing Technology on Advanced Age Women]. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02868528 (first received 16 August 2016).
NCT02941965 {unpublished data only}
    1. NCT02941965. Preimplantation Genetic Screening in Patients With Male Factor Infertility [Preimplantation Genetic Screening in Patients With Male Factor Infertility]. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02941965 (first received 21 October 2016).
NCT03118141 {unpublished data only}
    1. NCT03118141. Cumulative Live Birth Rate With eSET After Preimplantation Genetic Screening Versus Conventional In-vitro Fertilization (CESE-PGS) [Cumulative Live Birth Rate With eSET After In-vitro Fertilization With Preim-plantation Genetic Screening by Next Generation Sequencing Versus Conventional In-vitro Fertilization: a Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial]. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03118141 (first received 18 April 2017).
NCT03173885 {unpublished data only}
    1. NCT03173885. Investigating the Cryopreserved Blastocyst's ImplantatiOn Potential After Genetic Screening (BIOPS) [An RCT Evaluating the Implantation Potential of Vitrified Embryos Screened by Next Generation Sequencing Following Trophectoderm Biopsy, Versus Vitrified Unscreened Embryos in Good Prognosis Patients Undergoing IVF]. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03173885 (first received 2 June 2017).
NCT03214185 {unpublished data only}
    1. NCT03214185. Effects of PGS2.0 in Patients With Unexplained RPL [Effects of Preimplantation Genetic Screening 2.0 on the Clinical Outcomes of Assisted Reproductive Treatment in Patients With Recurrent Pregnancy Loss: a Multi-center-based Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial]. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03214185 (first received 11 July 2017).
NCT03371745 {unpublished data only}
    1. NCT03371745. The PrISICE Clinical Trial (Pre-Implantation Screening and Investigation on the Cryopreservation of Embryos) (PrISICE) [A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial Evaluating the Superiority of Preimplantation Genetic Screening (PGS) and Deferred Transfer of Cryopreserved Embryos Over "Freeze-Only" Deferred Transfer Without PGS or Immediate Embryo Transfer During a "Fresh" In Vitro Fertilization Cycle]. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03371745 (first received 13 December 2017).

Additional references

Angell 1983
    1. Angell RR, Aitken RJ, Van Look PF, Lumsden MA, Templeton AA. Chromosome abnormalities in human embryos after in vitro fertilization. Nature 1983;303(5915):336-8. [DOI: 10.1038/303336a0] - DOI - PubMed
ASRM 2018
    1. Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. The use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A): a committee opinion. Fertility and Sterility 2018;109(3):429-36. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.01.002] - DOI - PubMed
Baart 2006
    1. Baart EB, Martini E, Van den Berg I, Macklon NS, Galjaard RJ, Fauser BC, et al. Preimplantation genetic screening reveals a high incidence of aneuploidy and mosaicism in embryos from young women undergoing IVF. Human Reproduction 2006;21(1):223-33. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dei291] - DOI - PubMed
Belandres 2019
    1. Belandres D, Shamonki M, Nabil A. Current status of spent embryo media research for preimplantation genetic testing. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 2019;36(5):819-26. [DOI: 10.1007/s10815-019-01437-6] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Benadiva 1996
    1. Benadiva CA, Kligman I, Munné S. Aneuploidy 16 in human embryos increases significantly with maternal age. Fertility and Sterility 1996;66:248-55. - PubMed
Blockeel 2018 [pers comm]
    1. Blockeel C. Definition of live birth [personal communication]. Personal communication with the authors of the PGS Cochrane 2011 Unknown.
Bolton 2016
    1. Bolton H, Graham SJL, Van der Aa N, Kumar P, Theunis K, Fernandez E, et al. Mouse model of chromosome mosaicism reveals lineage-specific depletion of aneuploid cells and normal developmental potential. Nature Communications 2016;7:11165. [DOI: 10.1038/ncomms11165] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Capalbo 2018
    1. Capalbo A, Romanelli V, Patassini C, Poli M, Girardi L, Giancani A, et al. Diagnostic efficacy of blastocoel fluid and spent media as sources of DNA for preimplantation genetic testing in standard clinical conditions. Fertility and Sterility 2018;110(5):870-79. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.05.031] - DOI - PubMed
Chaimani 2013
    1. Chaimani A, Higgins JPT, Mavridis D, Spyridonos P, Salanti G. Graphical tools for network meta‐analysis in STATA. PLoS ONE 2013;8(10):e76654. - PMC - PubMed
Cimadomo 2020
    1. Cimadomo D, Rienzi L, Capalbo A, Rubio C, Innocenti F, García-Pascual C, et al. The dawn of the future: 30 years from the first biopsy of a human embryo. The detailed history of an ongoing revolution. Human Reproduction Update 2020;26(4):453-473. [DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmaa019 ] - PubMed
Covidence [Computer program]
    1. Veritas Health Innovation Covidence. Version accessed 14 September 2019. Melbourne, Australia: Veritas Health Innovation. Available at covidence.org.
Cram 2019
    1. Cram DS, Leigh S, Handyside A, Rechitsky L, Xu K, Harton G, et al. PGDIS Position Statement on the Transfer of Mosaic Embryos 2019. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 2019;39:e1-4. [DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2019.06.012] - DOI - PubMed
De Geyter 2018
    1. De Geyter C, Calhaz-Jorge C, Kupka MS, Wyns C, Mocanu E, Mortenko T et al. ART in Europe, 2014: results generated from European registries by ESHRE: The European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM) for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Human Reproduction 2018;33(9):1586-01. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dey242 ] - PubMed
De Rycke 2017
    1. De Rycke M, Goossens V, Kokkali G, Meijer-Hoogeveen M, Coonen E, Moutou C. ESHRE PGD Consortium data collection XIV-XV: cycles from January 2011 to December 2012 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2013. Human Reproduction 2017;32:1974-94. - PubMed
DeBrock 2010 [pers comm]
    1. Debrock S. Results after the first treatment cycle[personal communication]. Personal communication with the authors of the PGS Cochrane 2011 Unknown.
Delhanty 1997
    1. Delhanty JD, Harper JC, Ao A, Handyside AH, Winston RM. Multicolour FISH detects frequent chromosomal mosaicism and chaotic division in normal preimplantation embryos from fertile patients. Human Genetics 1997;99:755-60. [DOI: 10.1007/s004390050443 ] - PubMed
Dokras 1990
    1. Dokras A, Sargent IL, Ross C, Gardner RL, Barlow DH. Trophectoderm biopsy in human blastocysts. Human Reproduction 1990;5(7):821-5. [DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a137191 ] - PubMed
Dyer 2016
    1. Dyer S, Chambers GM, Mouzon J, Nygren KG, Zegers-Hochschild F, Mansour R, et al. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies world report: Assisted Reproductive Technology 2008, 2009 and 2010. Human Reproduction 2016;31(7):1588-609. - PubMed
ESHRE PGT‐SR/PGT‐A Working Group 2020
    1. ESHRE PGT-SR/PGT-A Working Group, Coonen E, Rubio C, Christopikou D, Dimitriadou E, Gontar J, et al. ESHRE PGT Consortium good practice recommendations for the detection of structural and numerical chromosomal aberrations. Progress in Human Reproduction Open 2020;3:1-12. [DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hoaa017 ] - PMC - PubMed
Geraedts 2011
    1. Geraedts J, Montag M, Magli MC, Repping S, Handyside A, Staessen C, et al. Polar body array CGH for prediction of the status of the corresponding oocyte. Part I: clinical results. Human Reproduction 2011;26(3):3173-80. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/der294 ] - PMC - PubMed
Geraedts 2016
    1. Geraedts J, Sermon K. Preimplantation genetic screening 2.0: the theory. Molecular Human Reproduction 2016;22(8):539-544. [DOI: 10.1093/molehr/gaw033. ] - PMC - PubMed
Gianaroli 2014
    1. Gianaroli L, Magli MC, Pomante A, Crivello AM, Cafueri G, Valerio M, et al. Blastocentesis: a source of DNA for pre implantation genetic testing. Results from a pilot study. Fertility and Sterility 2014;102:1692–99. - PubMed
Goossens 2009
    1. Goossens V, Harton G, Moutou C, Traeger-Synodinos J, Van Rij M, Harper JC. ESHRE PGD Consortium data collection IX: cycles from January to December 2006 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2007. Human Reproduction 2009;24(8):1786-810. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dep059] - DOI - PubMed
GRADEpro GDT [Computer program]
    1. McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime) GRADEpro GDT. Version accessed 15 January 2020. Hamilton (ON): McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime). Available at gradepro.org.
Greco 2015
    1. Greco E, Minasi MG, Fiorentino F. Healthy babies after intrauterine transfer of mosaic aneuploid blastocysts. New England Journal of Medicine 2015;373:2089-90. [DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc1500421] - DOI - PubMed
Griesinger 2016
    1. Griesinger G. Beware of the 'implantation rate'! Why the outcome parameter 'implantation rate' should be abandoned from infertility research. Human Reproduction 2016;31(2):249-51. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dev322] - DOI - PubMed
Hammond 2017
    1. Hammond ER, McGillivray BC, Wicker SM, Peek JC, Shelling AN, Stone P, et al. Characterizing nuclear and mitochondrial DNA in spent embryo culture media: genetic contamination identified. Fertility and Sterility 2017;107(1):220-8. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.10.015.] - DOI - PubMed
Handyside 1989
    1. Handyside AH, Pattinson JK, Penketh RJ, Delhanty JD, Winston RM, Tuddenham EG. Biopsy of human preimplantation embryos and sexing by DNA amplification. Lancet 1989;18(8634):347-9. [DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(89)91723-6 ] - PubMed
Harton 2011
    1. Harton GL, De Rycke M, Fiorentino F, Moutou C, SenGupta S, Traeger-Synodinos J, et al, on behalf of the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) PGD Consortium. ESHRE PGD consortium best practice guidelines for amplification-based PGD. Human Reproduction 2011;26:33-40. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deq231] [20966462] - DOI - PubMed
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.
Kahraman 2000
    1. Kahraman S, Bahce M, Samli H, Imirzalioglu N, Yakisn K, Cengiz G, et al. Healthy births and ongoing pregnancies obtained by preimplantation genetic diagnosis in patients with advanced maternal age and recurrent implantation failure. Human Reproduction 2000;15(9):2003-7. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/15.9.2003] - DOI - PubMed
Lawrenz 2019
    1. Lawrenz B, El Khatib I, Liñán A, Bayram A, Arnanz A, Chopra R, et al. The clinicians' dilemma with mosaicism - an insight from inner cell mass biopsies. Human Reproduction 2019;34(6):998-1010. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dez055] - DOI - PubMed
Leaver 2020
    1. Leaver M, Wells D. Non-invasive preimplantation genetic testing (niPGT): the next revolution in reproductive genetics? Human Reproduction Update 2020;26(1):16-42. [DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmz033] - DOI - PubMed
Lefebvre 2011
    1. Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J. Chapter 6: Searching for studies. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. In: Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Maheshwari 2015
    1. Maheshwari A, McLernon D, Bhattacharya S. Cumulative live birth rate: time for a consensus? Human Reproduction 2015;30(12):2703-07. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dev263] [PMID: ] - DOI - PubMed
Mastenbroek 2007 [pers comm]
    1. Mastenbroek S. Data of the first treatment cycle [personal communication]. Email to: Cornelisse S 19-06-2020.
Mastenbroek 2011
    1. Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, Veen F, Repping S. Preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs. Human Reproduction Update 2011;17(4):454-66. [DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmr003] - DOI - PubMed
Mastenbroek 2014
    1. Mastenbroek S, Repping S. Preimplantation genetic screening: back to the future. Hum Reprod 2014;29(9):1846-50. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deu163] - DOI - PubMed
Mochizuki 2020
    1. Mochizuki L, Gleicher N. The PGS/PGT-A controversy in IVF addressed as a formal conflict resolution analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet 2020;37(3):677-678. [DOI: 10.1007/s10815-020-01688-8] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Montag 2004
    1. Montag M, Van der Ven K, Dorn C, Van der Ven H. Outcome of laser-assisted polar body biopsy and aneuploidy testing. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 2004;9(4):425-9. [DOI: 10.1016/s1472-6483(10)61278-3 ] - PubMed
Montag 2009
    1. Montag M, Van der Ven K, Rosing B, Van der Ven H. Polar body biopsy: a viable alternative to preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 2009;18(1 Suppl 1):6-11. [DOI: 10.1016/s1472-6483(10)60109-5 ] - PubMed
Munné 1993
    1. Munné S, Weier HU, Griffo J, Cohen J. A fast and efficient method for simultaneous X and Y in situ hybridization of human blastomeres. Journal of Assisted Reproduction & Genetics 1993;10(1):82-90. [DOI: 10.1007/bf01204446 ] - PubMed
Munné 1999
    1. Munné S, Magli MC, Cohen J, Morton P, Sadowy S, Gianaroli L, et al. Positive outcome after preimplantation diagnosis of aneuploidy in human embryos. Human Reproduction 1999;14(9):2191-9. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/14.9.2191 ] - PubMed
Munné 2003
    1. Munné S, Sandalinas M, Escudero T, Velila E, Walmsley R, Sadowy S, et al. Improved implantation after preimplantation genetic diagnosis of aneuploidy. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 2003;7(1):91-7. [DOI: 10.1016/s1472-6483(10)61735-x ] - PubMed
Munné 2005
    1. Munné S, Chen S, Fischer J, Colls P, Zheng X, Stevens J, et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis reduces pregnancy loss in women aged 35 years and older with a history of recurrent miscarriages. Fertility and Sterility 2005;84(2):331-5. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.02.027 ] - PubMed
Obasaju 2001
    1. Obasaju M, Kadam A, Biancardi T, Sultan K, Fateh M, Munné S. Pregnancies from single normal embryo transfer in women older than 40 years. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 2001;2(2):98-101. [DOI: 10.1016/s1472-6483(10)62232-8 ] - PubMed
Patrizio 2019
    1. Patrizio P, Shoham G, Shoham Z, Leong M, Barad DH, Gleicher N. Worldwide live births following the transfer of chromosomally "Abnormal" embryos after PGT/A: results of a worldwide web-based survey. Journal Assisted Reproductive Genetics 2019;36(8):1599-1607. [DOI: 10.1007/s10815-019-01510-0] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Paulson 2017
    1. Paulson RJ. Preimplantation genetic screening: what is the clinical efficiency? Fertility and Sterility 2017;108(2):228-30. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.06.023] - DOI - PubMed
Pehlivan 2003
    1. Pehlivan T, Rubio C, Rodrigo L, Romero J, Remohi J, Simon C, et al. Impact of preimplantation genetic diagnosis on IVF outcome in implantation failure patients. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 2003;6(2):232-7. [DOI: 10.1016/s1472-6483(10)61715-4 ] - PubMed
Pellicer 1999
    1. Pellicer A, Rubio C, Vidal F, Minguez Y, Gimenez C, Egozcue J, et al. In vitro fertilization plus preimplantation genetic diagnosis in patients with recurrent miscarriage: an analysis of chromosome abnormalities in human preimplantation embryos. Fertility and Sterility 1999;71(6):1033-9. [DOI: 10.1016/s0015-0282(99)00143-0 ] - PubMed
Platteau 2004
    1. Platteau P, Staessen C, Michiels A, Tournaye H, Van Steirteghem A, Liebaers I, et al. Comparison of the aneuploidy frequency in embryos derived from testicular sperm extraction in obstructive azoospermic men. Human Reproduction 2004;19(7):1570-4. - PubMed
Platteau 2005
    1. Platteau P, Staessen C, Michiels A, Van Steirteghem A, Liebaers I, Devroey P. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening in women older than 37 years. Fertility and Sterility 2005;84(2):319-24. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.02.019 ] - PubMed
Popovic 2018
    1. Popovic M, Dheedene A, Christodoulou C, Taelman J, Dhaenens L, Van Nieuwerburgh F, et al. Chromosomal mosaicism in human blastocysts: the ultimate challenge of preimplantation genetic testing? Humun Reproduction 2018;33(7):1342-54. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dey106] - DOI - PubMed
Popovic 2020
    1. Popovic M, Dhaenens L, Boel A, Menten B, Heindryckx B. Chromosomal mosaicism in human blastocysts: the ultimate diagnostic dilemma. Human Reproduction Update 2020;26(3):313-34. [DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmz050] - DOI - PubMed
Review Manager 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.
Rosenwaks 2018
    1. Rosenwaks Z, Handyside AH, Fiorentino F, Gleicher N, Paulson RJ, Schattman GL, et al. The pros and cons of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: clinical and laboratory perspectives. Fertily and Sterility 2018;110(3):353-61. - PubMed
Rubio 2003
    1. Rubio C, Simon C, Vidal F, Rodrigo L, Pehlivan T, Remohi J, et al. Chromosomal abnormalities and embryo development in recurrent miscarriage couples. Human Reproduction 2003;18(1):192-8. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deg015 ] - PubMed
Rubio 2005
    1. Rubio C, Pehlivan T, Rodrigo L, Simon C, Remohi J, Pellicer A. Embryo aneuploidy screening for unexplained recurrent miscarriage: a minireview. American Journal of Reproductive Immunology 2005;53(4):159-65. [DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0897.2005.00260.x ] - PubMed
Scriven 2010
    1. Scriven PN, Bossuyt PM. Diagnostic accuracy: theoretical models for preimplantation genetic testing of a single nucleus using the fluorescence in situ hybridization technique. Hum Reprod 2010;25(10):2622-2628. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deq196] - DOI - PubMed
Sermon 2016
    1. Sermon K, Capalbo A, Cohen J, Coonen E, De Rycke M, De Vos A, et al. The why, the how and the when of PGS 2.0: current practices and expert opinions of fertility specialists, molecular biologists, and embryologists. Molecular Human Reproduction 2016;22(8):845-57. [DOI: 10.1093/molehr/gaw034 ] [PMID: ] - PMC - PubMed
Silber 2003
    1. Silber S, Escudero T, Lenahan K, Abdelhadi I, Kilani A, Munné S. Chromosomal abnormalities in embryos derived from testicular sperm extraction. Fertility and Sterility 2003;79(1):30-8. [DOI: 10.1016/s0015-0282(02)04407-2] - DOI - PubMed
Singla 2020
    1. Singla S, Iwamoto-Stohl LK, Zhu M, Zernicka-Goetz M. Autophagy-mediated apoptosis eliminates aneuploid cells in a mouse model of chromosome mosaicism. Nature Communications 2020;11:2958. [DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-16796-3] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Taylor 2014
    1. Taylor TH, Gitlin SA, Patrick JL, Crain JL, Wilson JM, Griffin DK. The origin, mechanisms, incidence and clinical consequences of chromosomal mosaicism in humans. Hum Reprod Update 2014;20(4):571-81. [DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmu016] - DOI - PubMed
Treff 2013
    1. Treff NR, Fedick A, Tao X, Devkota B, Taylor D, Scott RT. Evaluation of targeted next-generation sequencing-based preimplantation genetic diagnosis of monogenic disease. Fertility and Sterility 2013;99(5):1377-84. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.12.018 ] [PMID: ] - PubMed
Twisk 2006
    1. Twisk M, Mastenbroek S, Wely M, Heineman MJ, Van der Veen F, Repping S. Preimplantation genetic screening for abnormal number of chromosomes (aneuploidies) in in vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 1. Art. No: CD005291. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005291.pub2] - DOI - PubMed
van Echten‐Arends 2011
    1. Echten-Arends J, Mastenbroek S, Sikkema-Raddatz B, Korevaar JC, Heineman MJ, Veen F, et al. Chromosomal mosaicism in human preimplantation embryos: a systematic review. Human Reproduction Update 2011;17(5):620-27. [DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmr014] - DOI - PubMed
van Uum 2012
    1. Uum CM, Stevens SJ, Dreesen JC, Drüsedau M, Smeets HJ, Hollanders-Crombach B, et al. SNP array-based copy number and genotype analyses for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of human unbalanced translocations. European Journal of Human Genetics 2012;20:938-44. [DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2012.27] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Vera‐Rodriquez 2018
    1. Vera-Rodriguez M, Diez-Juan A, Jimenez-Almazan J, Martinez S, Navarro R, Peinado V, et al. Origin and composition of cell-free DNA in spent medium from human embryo culture during preimplantation development. Human Reproduction 2018;33(4):745-56. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dey028] [PMID: ] - DOI - PubMed
Verlinsky 1995
    1. Verlinsky Y, Cieslak J, Freidine M, Ivakhnenko V, Wolf G, Kovalinskaya L, et al. Pregnancies following pre-conception diagnosis of common aneuploidies by fluorescent in-situ hybridization. Human Reproduction 1995;10(7):1923-27. [DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a136207 ] [PMID: 8583011 ] - PubMed
Verpoest 2018 [pers comm]
    1. Sermon K. Cochrane review update: preimplantation genetic screening. Cornelisse S 27-02-2019.
Wells 2008
    1. Wells D, Alfarawati S, Fragouli E. Use of comprehensive chromosomal screening for embryo assessment: microarrays and CGH. Molecular Human Reproduction 2008;14(12):703-10. [DOI: 10.1093/molehr/gan062 ] [PMID: 18957518 ] - PMC - PubMed
Wilding 2004
    1. Wilding M, Forman R, Hogewind G, Di Matteo L, Zullo F, Cappiello F, et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for the treatment of failed in vitro fertilization embryo transfer and habitual abortion. Fertility and Sterility 2004;891(5):1302-7. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2003.10.028 ] - PubMed
Wilton 2002
    1. Wilton L. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening in early human embryos: a review. Prenat Diagn 2002;22(6):512-18. [DOI: 10.1002/pd.388] - DOI - PubMed
Wong 2014
    1. Wong KM, Mastenbroek S, Repping S. Cryopreservation of human embryos and its contribution to in vitro fertilization success rates. Fertility and Sterility 2014;102(1):19-26. [DOI: ] [PMID: 24890275 ] - PubMed
Zegers‐Hochschild 2017
    1. Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, Dyer S, Racowsky C, Mouzon J, Sokol R, et al. The International Glossary on Infertility and Fertility Care, 2017. Human Reproduction 2017;32:1786-1801. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dex234 ] - PMC - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Twisk M 2006
    1. Twisk M, Mastenbroek S, Wely M, Heineman MJ, Van der Veen F, Repping S. Preimplantation genetic screening for abnormal number of chromosomes (aneuploidies) in in vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858] - DOI - PubMed

Associated data