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
. 2025 May 14;20(5):e0321859.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0321859. eCollection 2025.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy after preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy

Vanessa Bacal  1   2 , Angela Li  1 , Heather Shapiro  1   2 , Urvi Rana  3 , Rhonda Zwingerman  4 , Lisa Avery  5   6 , Alina Palermo  2 , Eleni Philipoppolous  7 , Crystal Chan  1   8
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy after preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy

Vanessa Bacal et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Objective: Aneuploidy accounts for many pregnancy failures and congenital anomalies. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) is a screening test applied to embryos created from in vitro fertilization to diminish the chance of an aneuploid conception. The rate of misdiagnosis for both false aneuploidy (false positive) and false euploidy (false negative) test results is unknown. The objective of this study was to determine the rate of misclassification of both aneuploidy and euploidy after PGT-A.

Data sources: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central, CINAHL and WHO Clinical Trials Registry from inception until April 10, 2024. The protocol was registered in International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO CRD 42020219074).

Methods of study selection: We included studies that conducted either a pre-clinical validation of the genetic platform for PGT-A using a cell line, studies that compared the embryo biopsy results to those from the whole dissected embryo or its inner cell mass (WE/ICM), and studies that compared the biopsy results to prenatal or postnatal genetic testing.

Tabulation, integration, and results: Two independent reviewers extracted true and false positives and negatives comparing biopsy results to the reference standard (known karyotype, WE/ICM, pregnancy outcome). For preclinical studies, the main outcome was the positive and negative predictive values. Misdiagnosis rate was the outcome for pregnancy outcome studies. The electronic search yielded 6674 citations, of which 109 were included. For WE/ICM studies (n=40), PPV was 89.2% (95% CI 83.1-94.0) and NPV was 94.2% (95% CI 91.1-96.7, I2=42%) for aneuploid and euploid embryos, respectively. The PPV for mosaic embryos of either a confirmatory mosaic or aneuploid result was 52.8% (95% CI 37.9-67.5). For pregnancy outcome studies (n=43), the misdiagnosis rate after euploid embryo transfer was 0.2% (95% CI 0.0-0.7%, I2=65%). However, the rate for mosaic transfer, with a confirmatory euploid pregnancy outcome, was 21.7% (95% CI: 9.6-36.9, I2=95%).

Conclusion: The accuracy of an aneuploid result from PGT-A is excellent and can be relied upon as a screening tool for embryos to avoid aneuploid pregnancies. Similarly, the misdiagnosis rate after euploid embryo transfer is less than 1%. However, there is a significant limitation in the accuracy of mosaic embryos.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. PRISMA flow diagram.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Forest plots for whole embryo or ICM studies.
a. Negative predictive value of euploid embryos. b. Positive predictive value of aneuploid embryos. c. Positive predictive value of mosaic embryos.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Forest plots for pregnancy outcomes: misdiagnosis rate.
a. Euploid embryo transfer. b. Aneuploid embryo transfer. c. Non-selection embryo transfer. d. Mosaic embryo transfer.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Lee E, Illingworth P, Wilton L, Chambers GM. The clinical effectiveness of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy in all 24 chromosomes (PGD-A): systematic review. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(2):473–83. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deu303 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dahdouh EM, Balayla J, Audibert F, Genetics Committee, Wilson RD, Audibert F, et al.. RETIRED: Technical Update: Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis and Screening. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2015;37(5):451–63. doi: 10.1016/s1701-2163(15)30261-9 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Munné S, Wells D. Detection of mosaicism at blastocyst stage with the use of high-resolution next-generation sequencing. Fertil Steril. 2017;107(5):1085–91. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.03.024 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Friedenthal J, Maxwell SM, Tiegs AW, Besser AG, McCaffrey C, Munné S, et al.. Clinical error rates of next generation sequencing and array comparative genomic hybridization with single thawed euploid embryo transfer. Eur J Med Genet. 2020;63(5):103852. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmg.2020.103852 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Maxwell SM, Colls P, Hodes-Wertz B, McCulloh DH, McCaffrey C, Wells D, et al.. Why do euploid embryos miscarry? A case–control study comparing the rate of aneuploidy within presumed euploid embryos that resulted in miscarriage or live birth using next-generation sequencing. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(6):1414-1419.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.08.017 - DOI - PubMed