PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy of preimplantation genetic screening to increase ongoing pregnancy rates in couples without known genetic disorders. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Two reviewers independently determined study eligibility and extracted data. RESULTS: Ten randomized trials (1,512 women) were included. The quality of evidence was moderate. Meta-analyses using a random-effects model suggest that PGS has a lower rate of ongoing pregnancies (risk ratio=0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.62-0.87) and a lower rate of live births (risk ratio=0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.64-0.91) than standard in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection. CONCLUSIONS: In women with poor prognosis or in general in vitro fertilization program, in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection with preimplantation genetic screening for aneuploidy does not increase but instead was associated with lower rates of ongoing pregnancies and live births. The use of preimplantation genetic screening in daily practice does not appear to be justified.
PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy of preimplantation genetic screening to increase ongoing pregnancy rates in couples without known genetic disorders. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Two reviewers independently determined study eligibility and extracted data. RESULTS: Ten randomized trials (1,512 women) were included. The quality of evidence was moderate. Meta-analyses using a random-effects model suggest that PGS has a lower rate of ongoing pregnancies (risk ratio=0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.62-0.87) and a lower rate of live births (risk ratio=0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.64-0.91) than standard in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection. CONCLUSIONS: In women with poor prognosis or in general in vitro fertilization program, in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection with preimplantation genetic screening for aneuploidy does not increase but instead was associated with lower rates of ongoing pregnancies and live births. The use of preimplantation genetic screening in daily practice does not appear to be justified.
Authors: Lawrence Werlin; Ingrid Rodi; Alan DeCherney; Ellen Marello; David Hill; Santiago Munné Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: P J Devereaux; Peter T-L Choi; Samer El-Dika; Mohit Bhandari; Victor M Montori; Holger J Schünemann; Amit X Garg; Jason W Busse; Diane Heels-Ansdell; William A Ghali; Braden J Manns; Gordon H Guyatt Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Gunn E Vist; Regina Kunz; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Holger J Schünemann Journal: BMJ Date: 2008-04-26
Authors: E Iwarsson; M Lundqvist; J Inzunza; L Ahrlund-Richter; P Sjöblom; O Lundkvist; N Simberg; M Nordenskjöld; E Blennow Journal: Hum Genet Date: 1999-05 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: I Hammoud; F Vialard; M Bergere; M Albert; D Molina Gomes; M Adler; L Malagrida; M Bailly; R Wainer; J Selva Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2012-08-14 Impact factor: 3.412