Yanhe Liu1,2,3, Fang Qi4, Phillip Matson5, Dean E Morbeck6, Ben W Mol7, Sai Zhao4, Masoud Afnan8. 1. Reproductive Medicine Center, Tianjin United Family Hospital, Tianjin, China. gift0409@yahoo.com.au. 2. School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia. gift0409@yahoo.com.au. 3. School of Human Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia. gift0409@yahoo.com.au. 4. Systematic Review Solutions Ltd, Shanghai, China. 5. School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia. 6. Fertility Associates, Auckland, New Zealand. 7. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, Australia. 8. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Qingdao United Family Hospital, Qingdao, China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the between-laboratory reproducibility of embryo selection/deselection effectiveness using qualitative and quantitative time-lapse parameters. METHODS: A systematic search was performed on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (up to February 2020) without restriction on date, language, document type, and publication status. Measuring outcomes included implantation, blastulation, good-quality blastocyst formation, and euploid blastocyst. RESULTS: We detected 6 retrospective cohort studies externally validating the first clinical time-lapse model (Meseguer) emphasizing quantitative parameters, of which 3 (including one involving 2 independent centers) were included for the pooled analysis. Receiver operating characteristics analysis showed reduced predictive power of the model when either including or not including sister clinic validation. Fifteen cohort studies evaluating qualitative parameters were included for meta-analysis, and the mean Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was 5.3. Overall, meta-analysis showed significantly adverse association between the presence of ≥ 1 cleavage abnormalities and embryo implantation rates (11 studies, n = 7266; RR = 0.39[0.28, 0.55]95% CI; I2 = 57%). Further analysis showed adverse impacts of direct cleavage (7 studies, n = 7065; RR = 0.28 [0.15, 0.54] 95% CI; I2 = 46%), reverse cleavage (2 studies, n = 3622; RR = 0.16 [0.03, 0.75] 95% CI; I2 = 0%), chaotic cleavage (2 studies, n = 3643; RR = 0.11 [0.02, 0.69] 95% CI; I2 = 24%), and multinucleation (5 studies, n = 2576; RR = 0.59 [0.50, 0.69] 95% CI; I2 = 0%), but not the < 6 intercellular contact points at the 4-cell stage (1 study, n = 185; RR = 0.17 [0.02, 1.15] 95% CI). CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative time-lapse parameters are reliably associated with embryo developmental potential among laboratories, whereas the reproducibility of time-lapse embryo selection model that emphasizes quantitative parameters may be compromised when externally applied.
PURPOSE: To investigate the between-laboratory reproducibility of embryo selection/deselection effectiveness using qualitative and quantitative time-lapse parameters. METHODS: A systematic search was performed on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (up to February 2020) without restriction on date, language, document type, and publication status. Measuring outcomes included implantation, blastulation, good-quality blastocyst formation, and euploid blastocyst. RESULTS: We detected 6 retrospective cohort studies externally validating the first clinical time-lapse model (Meseguer) emphasizing quantitative parameters, of which 3 (including one involving 2 independent centers) were included for the pooled analysis. Receiver operating characteristics analysis showed reduced predictive power of the model when either including or not including sister clinic validation. Fifteen cohort studies evaluating qualitative parameters were included for meta-analysis, and the mean Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was 5.3. Overall, meta-analysis showed significantly adverse association between the presence of ≥ 1 cleavage abnormalities and embryo implantation rates (11 studies, n = 7266; RR = 0.39[0.28, 0.55]95% CI; I2 = 57%). Further analysis showed adverse impacts of direct cleavage (7 studies, n = 7065; RR = 0.28 [0.15, 0.54] 95% CI; I2 = 46%), reverse cleavage (2 studies, n = 3622; RR = 0.16 [0.03, 0.75] 95% CI; I2 = 0%), chaotic cleavage (2 studies, n = 3643; RR = 0.11 [0.02, 0.69] 95% CI; I2 = 24%), and multinucleation (5 studies, n = 2576; RR = 0.59 [0.50, 0.69] 95% CI; I2 = 0%), but not the < 6 intercellular contact points at the 4-cell stage (1 study, n = 185; RR = 0.17 [0.02, 1.15] 95% CI). CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative time-lapse parameters are reliably associated with embryo developmental potential among laboratories, whereas the reproducibility of time-lapse embryo selection model that emphasizes quantitative parameters may be compromised when externally applied.
Entities:
Keywords:
Embryo selection; In vitro fertilization; Meta-analysis; Time-lapse
Authors: S T Yang; J X Shi; F Gong; S P Zhang; C F Lu; K Tan; L Z Leng; M Hao; H He; Y F Gu; G X Lu; G Lin Journal: Reprod Biomed Online Date: 2015-02-26 Impact factor: 3.828
Authors: Yong Soo Hur; Eun Kyung Ryu; Chang Seop Hyun; Seong Ho Yang; San Hyun Yoon; Kyung Sil Lim; Won Don Lee; Jin Ho Lim Journal: Clin Exp Reprod Med Date: 2018-03-30