Literature DB >> 28031323

Inter-observer and intra-observer agreement between embryologists during selection of a single Day 5 embryo for transfer: a multicenter study.

Ashleigh Storr1,2, Christos A Venetis3,2, Simon Cooke3,2, Suha Kilani3,2, William Ledger3,2.   

Abstract

STUDY QUESTION: What is the inter-observer and intra-observer agreement between embryologists when selecting a single Day 5 embryo for transfer? SUMMARY ANSWER: The inter-observer and intra-observer agreement between embryologists when selecting a single Day 5 embryo for transfer was generally good, although not optimal, even among experienced embryologists. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Previous research on the morphological assessment of early stage (two pronuclei to Day 3) embryos has shown varying levels of inter-observer and intra-observer agreement. However, single blastocyst transfer is now becoming increasingly popular and there are no published data that assess inter-observer and intra-observer agreement when selecting a single embryo for Day 5 transfer. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This was a prospective study involving 10 embryologists working at five different IVF clinics within a single organization between July 2013 and November 2015. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,
METHODS: The top 10 embryologists were selected based on their yearly Quality Assurance Program scores for blastocyst grading and were asked to morphologically grade all Day 5 embryos and choose a single embryo for transfer in a survey of 100 cases using 2D images. A total of 1000 decisions were therefore assessed. For each case, Day 5 images were shown, followed by a Day 3 and Day 5 image of the same embryo. Subgroup analyses were also performed based on the following characteristics of embryologists: the level of clinical embryology experience in the laboratory; amount of research experience; number of days per week spent grading embryos. The agreement between these embryologists and the one that scored the embryos on the actual day of transfer was also evaluated. Inter-observer and intra-observer variability was assessed using the kappa coefficient to evaluate the extent of agreement. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: This study showed that all 10 embryologists agreed on the embryo chosen for transfer in 50 out of 100 cases. In 93 out of 100 cases, at least 6 out of the 10 embryologists agreed. The inter-observer and intra-observer agreement among embryologists when selecting a single Day 5 embryo for transfer was generally good as assessed by the kappa scores (kappa = 0.734, 95% CI: 0.665-0.791 and 0.759, 95% CI: 0.622-0.833, respectively). The subgroup analyses did not substantially alter the inter-observer and intra-observer agreement among embryologists. The agreement when Day 3 images were included alongside Day 5 images of the same embryos resulted in a change of mind at least three times by each embryologist (on average for <10% of cases) and resulted in a small decrease in inter-observer and intra-observer agreement between embryologists (kappa = 0.676, 95% CI: 0.617-0.724 and 0.752, 95% CI: 0.656-808, respectively).The assessment of the inter-observer agreement with regard to morphological grading of Day 5 embryos showed only a fair-to-moderate agreement, which was observed across all subgroup analyses. The highest overall kappa coefficient was seen for the grading of the developmental stage of an embryo (0.513; 95% CI: 0.492-0.538). The findings were similar when the individual embryologists were compared with the embryologist who made the morphological assessments of the available embryos on the actual day of transfer. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: All embryologists had already completed their training and were working under one organization with similar policies between the five clinics. Therefore, the inter-observer agreement might not be as high between embryologists working in clinics with different policies or with different levels of training. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE
FINDINGS: The generally good, although not optimal uniformity between participating embryologists when selecting a Day 5 embryo for transfer, as well as, the surprisingly low agreement when morphologically grading Day 5 embryos could be improved, potentially resulting in increased pregnancy rates. Future studies need to be directed toward technologies that can help achieve this. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: None declared. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.
© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  agreement; embryo; inter-observer variability; intra-observer variability; morphology

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 28031323     DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dew330

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Reprod        ISSN: 0268-1161            Impact factor:   6.918


  20 in total

1.  Do patient factors influence embryologists' decisions to freeze borderline blastocysts?

Authors:  T Burns; E R Hammond; L Cree; D E Morbeck; N S Consedine
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2020-06-26       Impact factor: 3.412

2.  The association between quality of supernumerary embryos in a cohort and implantation potential of the transferred blastocyst.

Authors:  Phillip A Romanski; Randi H Goldman; Leslie V Farland; Serene S Srouji; Catherine Racowsky
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2018-07-05       Impact factor: 3.412

3.  Should there be an "AI" in TEAM? Embryologists selection of high implantation potential embryos improves with the aid of an artificial intelligence algorithm.

Authors:  V W Fitz; M K Kanakasabapathy; P Thirumalaraju; H Kandula; L B Ramirez; L Boehnlein; J E Swain; C L Curchoe; K James; I Dimitriadis; I Souter; C L Bormann; H Shafiee
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2021-09-17       Impact factor: 3.357

4.  Development and evaluation of inexpensive automated deep learning-based imaging systems for embryology.

Authors:  Manoj Kumar Kanakasabapathy; Prudhvi Thirumalaraju; Charles L Bormann; Hemanth Kandula; Irene Dimitriadis; Irene Souter; Vinish Yogesh; Sandeep Kota Sai Pavan; Divyank Yarravarapu; Raghav Gupta; Rohan Pooniwala; Hadi Shafiee
Journal:  Lab Chip       Date:  2019-11-22       Impact factor: 6.799

5.  Blastocyst age, expansion, trophectoderm morphology, and number cryopreserved are variables predicting clinical implantation in single blastocyst frozen embryo transfers in freeze-only-IVF.

Authors:  Kemal Ozgur; Murat Berkkanoglu; Hasan Bulut; Levent Donmez; Ayhan Isikli; Kevin Coetzee
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2021-02-16       Impact factor: 3.412

6.  The presence of cytoplasmic strings in human blastocysts is associated with the probability of clinical pregnancy with fetal heart.

Authors:  Jessica Eastick; Christos Venetis; Simon Cooke; Michael Chapman
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2021-05-19       Impact factor: 3.357

7.  Top quality blastocyst formation rates in relation to progesterone levels on the day of oocyte maturation in GnRH antagonist IVF/ICSI cycles.

Authors:  V S Vanni; E Somigliana; M Reschini; L Pagliardini; E Marotta; S Faulisi; A Paffoni; P Vigano'; W Vegetti; M Candiani; E Papaleo
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-05-17       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Morphology vs morphokinetics: a retrospective comparison of inter-observer and intra-observer agreement between embryologists on blastocysts with known implantation outcome.

Authors:  Emma Adolfsson; Anna Nowosad Andershed
Journal:  JBRA Assist Reprod       Date:  2018-09-01

9.  Deep learning as a predictive tool for fetal heart pregnancy following time-lapse incubation and blastocyst transfer.

Authors:  D Tran; S Cooke; P J Illingworth; D K Gardner
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2019-06-04       Impact factor: 6.918

10.  Development of an artificial intelligence-based assessment model for prediction of embryo viability using static images captured by optical light microscopy during IVF.

Authors:  M VerMilyea; J M M Hall; S M Diakiw; A Johnston; T Nguyen; D Perugini; A Miller; A Picou; A P Murphy; M Perugini
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2020-04-28       Impact factor: 6.918

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.