The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) has increasingly been used in the past decade. Here we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs on the effect of PGS on the probability of live birth after IVF. METHODS: PubMed and trial registers were searched for RCTs on PGS. Trials were assessed following predetermined quality criteria. The primary outcome was live birth rate per woman, secondary outcomes were ongoing pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, multiple pregnancy rate and pregnancy outcome. RESULTS: Nine RCTs comparing IVF with and without PGS were included in our meta-analysis. Fluorescence in situ hybridization was used in all trials and cleavage stage biopsy was used in all but one trial. PGS significantly lowered live birth rate after IVF for women of advanced maternal age (risk difference: -0.08; 95% confidence interval: -0. 13 to -0.03). For a live birth rate of 26% after IVF without PGS, the rate would be between 13 and 23% using PGS. Trials where PGS was offered to women with a good prognosis and to women with repeated implantation failure suggested similar outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence of a beneficial effect of PGS as currently applied on the live birth rate after IVF. On the contrary, for women of advanced maternal age PGS significantly lowers the live birth rate. Technical drawbacks and chromosomal mosaicism underlie this inefficacy of PGS. New approaches in the application of PGS should be evaluated carefully before their introduction into clinical practice.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Gravholt, C. H., Andersen, N. H., Conway, G. S., Dekkers, O. M., Geffner, M. E., Klein, K. O., Lin, A. E., Mauras, N., Quigley, C. A., Rubin, K., et al. (2017) · European Journal of Endocrinology · doi:10.1530/eje-17-0430 · Cited by 1,101
Rubio, C., Bellver, J., Rodrigo, L., Castillón, G., Guillén, A., Vidal, C., Giles, J., Ferrando, M., Cabanillas, S., Remohí, J., et al. (2017) · Fertility and Sterility · doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.03.011 · Cited by 389
Delayed childbearing: effects on fertility and the outcome of pregnancy
Balasch, J., & Gratacós, E. (2012) · Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/gco.0b013e3283517908 · Cited by 253
Mosaicism in Preimplantation Human Embryos: When Chromosomal Abnormalities Are the Norm
McCoy, R. C. (2017) · Trends in Genetics · doi:10.1016/j.tig.2017.04.001 · Cited by 235
Ikuma, S., Sato, T., Sugiura-Ogasawara, M., Nagayoshi, M., Tanaka, A., & Takeda, S. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0129958 · Cited by 89
“Use of a cleavage stage biopsy might be one of the reasons why the pregnancy rate decreased in an RCT comparing PGS+IVF and IVF alone [27].”
Metadata
- Authors
- Mastenbroek, S., Twisk, M., van der Veen, F., & Repping, S.
- Venue
- Human Reproduction Update
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2011-04-29
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 454-466
- ISSN
- 1355-4786 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2369
- OpenAlex
- W2131300747
- Cited by
- 433
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/humupd/dmr003
- The paper
- Mastenbroek, S., Twisk, M., van der Veen, F., & Repping, S. (2011). Preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs. Human Reproduction Update. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmr003
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.