Original Article
In Vitro Fertilization with Preimplantation Genetic Screening
N Engl J Med 2007; 357:9-17July 5, 2007
- Abstract
Background
Pregnancy rates in women of advanced maternal age undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) are disappointingly low. It has been suggested that the use of preimplantation genetic screening of cleavage-stage embryos for aneuploidies may improve the effectiveness of IVF in these women.
Methods
We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial comparing three cycles of IVF with and without preimplantation genetic screening in women 35 through 41 years of age. The primary outcome measure was ongoing pregnancy at 12 weeks of gestation. The secondary outcome measures were biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, and live birth.
Results
Four hundred eight women (206 assigned to preimplantation genetic screening and 202 assigned to the control group) underwent 836 cycles of IVF (434 cycles with and 402 cycles without preimplantation genetic screening). The ongoing-pregnancy rate was significantly lower in the women assigned to preimplantation genetic screening (52 of 206 women [25%]) than in those not assigned to preimplantation genetic screening (74 of 202 women [37%]; rate ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51 to 0.93). The women assigned to preimplantation genetic screening also had a significantly lower live-birth rate (49 of 206 women [24%] vs. 71 of 202 women [35%]; rate ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.92).
Conclusions
Preimplantation genetic screening did not increase but instead significantly reduced the rates of ongoing pregnancies and live births after IVF in women of advanced maternal age. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN76355836.)
Media in This Article
Figure 1
Assignment, Treatment, and Analysis of Women.Table 1
Characteristics of the Women.Article Activity
- Article
The use of in vitro fertilization (IVF) has steadily increased over the past decade. The American and European registries of assisted reproductive technology reported a total of 352,769 initiated IVF cycles in the year 2002.1,2 In about half of these cycles, the woman was 35 years of age or older,1,2 reflecting the demographic trend toward postponement of the time to start a family.3 Unfortunately, IVF by itself cannot compensate for the lower fecundity associated with increasing age.3
A potential cause of the low pregnancy rates in women of advanced maternal age undergoing IVF is the increased incidence of numerical chromosomal abnormalities in embryos from these women.4 It is thought that most of these chromosomally abnormal embryos do not develop to term. Consequently, transfer of embryos shown to be euploid by preimplantation genetic screening has been proposed as a way to increase live-birth rates in these women.4 In preimplantation genetic screening, a single blastomere is aspirated from each embryo, and the copy number of a set of chromosomes is determined. Embryos that are identified as abnormal are then discarded, and embryos with a normal genetic constitution are selected for transfer.
The use of preimplantation genetic screening is increasingly common, in particular among women of advanced maternal age.5,6 It has even been suggested that preimplantation genetic screening will become a standard procedure for women undergoing IVF.6 Evidence supporting the use of preimplantation genetic screening, however, is limited. Observational studies comparing IVF with and without preimplantation genetic screening have shown that the use of preimplantation genetic screening is associated with higher implantation rates for transferred embryos but not with an increase in the rate of ongoing pregnancies per initiated cycle or per follicular aspiration.7-11 A recent Cochrane review of preimplantation genetic screening included only two trials (one available only in abstract form), and it reported no significant difference in ongoing-pregnancy rates between women undergoing IVF with and those undergoing IVF without preimplantation genetic screening.12 We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial comparing ongoing-pregnancy rates after IVF with and without preimplantation genetic screening in women of advanced maternal age.
Methods
Study Population
Women from 35 through 41 years of age who were scheduled for IVF in the Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam or the University Medical Center Groningen, or in one of the clinics of these centers (the Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis in Amsterdam and the Medical Center Leeuwarden in Leeuwarden), who had no previous failed IVF cycles and who did not object to a possible double-embryo transfer, were eligible to participate in the study. The study protocol was approved by the institutional review boards of all participating hospitals and by the Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects in the Netherlands.
After providing written informed consent, the women were randomly assigned to undergo three cycles of IVF, with embryo selection based either on preimplantation genetic screening or on morphologic features of the embryo; the latter is standard care in the Netherlands. A cycle was defined as an ovarian stimulation procedure that resulted in a follicular aspiration.
Randomization was performed centrally, before the first follicular aspiration, by a computer program with a minimization procedure for age (35 through 37 years and 38 through 41 years) and reproductive technique (IVF and intracytoplasmic sperm injection), with stratification according to study center. The women and their doctors were unaware of treatment allocation; to maintain blinding, they were not allowed to enter the laboratories and were given no information about the number and quality of the embryos to be transferred.
The stimulation protocol included ovarian down-regulation with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (triptorelin, Decapeptyl, Ferring) starting in the midluteal phase. Ovarian hyperstimulation was conducted with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (follitropin, Gonal-F, Serono) starting on cycle day 5, at an initial dose of 150 IU in the first cycle. Follicular aspiration was performed under transvaginal ultrasound guidance 36 hours after ovulation induction with 10,000 U of human chorionic gonadotropin (Pregnyl, Organon). The oocytes were inseminated with 10,000 progressively motile spermatozoa (in vitro fertilization) or injected with a single spermatozoon (intracytoplasmic sperm injection) approximately 4 hours after follicular aspiration.
For women assigned to preimplantation genetic screening, the screening procedure started 3 days after follicular aspiration during each cycle. Laser-assisted (Zilos, Hamilton Thorne Biosciences) biopsy of a single blastomere was performed on all available embryos containing at least four blastomeres. Individual blastomeres were fixed on glass slides with polyoxy-ethylene(20)sorbitan monolaurate (Tween 20) (0.1% in 0.01 N hydrochloric acid) and a methanol–acetic acid mixture (in a 3:1 ratio).13,14 A biopsy of a second blastomere was performed only if no nucleus suitable for fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) was available after fixation of the first blastomere and only if the remaining embryo contained at least four blastomeres. FISH analysis was performed in two rounds for a total of eight chromosomes. On the day of embryo biopsy, all available nuclei were analyzed for chromosomes 1, 16, and 17 with chromosome enumeration probes (Vysis); the next day (after overnight hybridization), the same nuclei were analyzed for chromosomes 13, 18, 21, X, and Y with MultiVysion PGT probes (Vysis). Embryo biopsy, blastomere fixation, and FISH analysis were all performed by experienced embryologists and technicians.
On the basis of the results of FISH analysis, embryos were categorized as normal if two copies of each autosome were present and the sex chromosomes were either XX or XY, abnormal if a different chromosomal constitution was found, and undetermined if no determination of chromosomal constitution could be made because of a failed biopsy, the absence of a nucleus after fixation of the blastomere, the presence of an incomplete nucleus after fixation, or failure of the FISH procedure. Embryos on which no biopsy was performed because they contained fewer than four blastomeres were also categorized as undetermined.
The two chromosomally normal embryos with the best morphologic features15 were selected for transfer on day 4. Embryos were given a score daily according to their morphologic features, with a focus on the number and regularity of blastomeres and the percentage of fragmentation.15 Chromosomally abnormal embryos were never selected for transfer. If no chromosomally normal embryos with good morphologic features were available for transfer, undetermined embryos with good morphologic features were selected for transfer. In the control group, the selection of embryos for transfer was based solely on morphologic features according to the scoring procedure described above. A maximum of two embryos were transferred 4 days after insemination. In both study groups, if more than two embryos were suitable for transfer, supplementary good-quality embryos were cryopreserved. In cases of failed IVF cycles, these cryopreserved embryos were thawed and transferred to the woman's uterus before a new cycle was initiated.
Outcome Measures
The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy, which was defined as a viable intrauterine pregnancy after 12 weeks of gestation. Secondary outcomes included biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, and live birth. Biochemical pregnancy was defined as a serum β human chorionic gonadotropin level of at least 2 IU per liter 2 weeks after embryo transfer. Clinical pregnancy was defined as the presence of a gestational sac confirmed by transvaginal ultrasound examination at a gestational age of 7 weeks.
Sample-Size Calculation
In the 3 years preceding the trial, the cumulative pregnancy rate among women of advanced maternal age in the participating centers after three cycles of IVF was 40%. An increase of at least 15% was considered to be clinically relevant. We calculated that a sample size of 372 women would be needed to detect an increase in the cumulative ongoing-pregnancy rate from 40 to 55% (rate ratio, 1.38) after three cycles of IVF with preimplantation genetic screening, with a power of at least 80% at a significance level of 0.05.
Statistical Analysis
We calculated the rates of pregnancy and live birth in each group and the corresponding rate ratios with 95% confidence intervals. We used chi-square statistics to test for significance. Data were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle.
Two months after initiation of the trial, one interim analysis by a data safety and monitoring committee unaware of treatment assignment was planned. The O'Brien–Fleming procedure for a two-stage design was applied, in which the significance level for the final analysis of the primary outcome was 0.045 or less. An automatically generated, blinded overview, which was available only to the data safety and monitoring committee, was used for this interim analysis.
Results
Between May 2003 and November 2005, a total of 408 women were randomly assigned to undergo IVF with (206 women) or without (202 women) preimplantation genetic screening. One hundred ninety-five women in the preimplantation-genetic-screening group and 184 in the control group underwent the assigned intervention in all their cycles (Figure 1Figure 1
Assignment, Treatment, and Analysis of Women.); the primary reason for failure to consistently undergo the assigned intervention was withdrawal of consent, in most cases because of unwillingness to accept the blinding. These women were informed of their treatment assignment and received standard IVF with embryo transfer on day 3 of their remaining cycle or cycles. In the few cases in which preimplantation genetic screening could not be performed because of logistic problems or failure of the laser equipment, the women were not informed of their treatment assignment and were treated according to protocol in their remaining cycles.Seventy-seven of the 206 women assigned to preimplantation genetic screening and 71 of the 202 control women did not complete three cycles of IVF nor did they achieve ongoing pregnancy within the study period. The reasons for not completing three cycles were similar between groups and were primarily due to poor ovarian response or the burden of treatment (Figure 1).
Treatment was continued until June 2006, and follow-up ended in January 2007. No women were lost to follow-up. The baseline characteristics were similar in the two study groups (Table 1Table 1
Characteristics of the Women.).As compared with women in the control group, women in the preimplantation-genetic-screening group had a significantly lower rate of ongoing pregnancy (25% [52 of 206] vs. 37% [74 of 202]; rate ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51 to 0.93) and a significantly lower live-birth rate (24% [49 of 206] vs. 35% [71 of 202]; rate ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.92). The biochemical and clinical pregnancy rates were also significantly lower in the preimplantation-genetic-screening group than in the control group. The miscarriage rates did not differ significantly between the groups (Table 2Table 2
Outcomes in Women Who Underwent Preimplantation Genetic Screening and in Controls.).Clinical characteristics according to treatment cycle are shown in Table 3Table 3
Clinical Characteristics According to Treatment Cycle.. A total of 836 cycles of IVF with follicular aspiration were performed (434 cycles with and 402 cycles without preimplantation genetic screening). The ongoing-pregnancy rates and the rates of biochemical and clinical pregnancy in the two groups were not significantly different when data were analyzed for first cycles only, for second cycles only, or for third cycles only.The embryologic characteristics of treatment are shown in Table 4Table 4
Embryologic Characteristics of Treatment.. In the preimplantation-genetic-screening group, 75 of 642 transferred embryos (11.7%) implanted (as determined by the presence of a gestational sac according to transvaginal ultrasound at a gestational age of 7 weeks). In the control group, 99 of 673 transferred embryos (14.7%) implanted. Post hoc analyses of the results from the preimplantation-genetic-screening group showed that in cycles in which two embryos with normal FISH results were transferred, the implantation rate was 16.8% (53 of 316), and that in cycles in which two undetermined embryos were transferred, the implantation rate was 6.0% (6 of 100).In the preimplantation-genetic-screening group, one woman underwent elective termination of a pregnancy that was spontaneously conceived after prenatal diagnosis showed a trisomy 18. There was one intrauterine death (due to abruptio placentae) and one premature delivery of twins at 24 weeks of gestation, resulting in the postpartum death of both children. In the control group, two women underwent elective termination of pregnancy because of prenatally detected fetal conditions, trisomy 18 in one case and a cleft lip and palate in the other. There was one intrauterine death of a fetus, which was delivered at 24 weeks of gestation.
Discussion
In this large, randomized, double-blinded, controlled trial, we have shown that preimplantation genetic screening did not increase but instead significantly reduced the ongoing-pregnancy and live-birth rates after IVF in women of advanced maternal age.
Women were randomly assigned to three cycles of IVF with or without preimplantation genetic screening, the latter treatment mimicking usual IVF practice. Our power calculation was based on the assumption that all women would complete three IVF cycles and that the ongoing-pregnancy rate in the control group would be 40%. Although about one third of the women in our study did not complete three cycles of IVF, mainly because of poor ovarian response or the burden of IVF treatment, an ongoing-pregnancy rate of 37% was achieved in the control group.
The clinical pregnancy rate per follicular aspiration in the group undergoing preimplantation genetic screening (14%) is in line with published results from other centers. The European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis Consortium, which retrospectively collects data on the outcomes of preimplantation genetic screening, reported a clinical pregnancy rate of 12% per follicular aspiration among 478 IVF cycles of women of advanced maternal age undergoing preimplantation genetic screening in 2003.5
Our results are also in line with the outcomes of the only other large, randomized trial of preimplantation genetic screening published to date, although that trial was not powered for the outcomes of ongoing pregnancy or live birth.16 In that trial, 389 women were randomly assigned to a single treatment cycle of IVF, with or without preimplantation genetic screening. Women assigned to preimplantation genetic screening had a relative ongoing-pregnancy rate of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.43 to 1.21) and a relative live-birth rate of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.41 to 1.17). The primary outcome of the study was implantation rate (and therefore embryos instead of women were used as the basis for the sample-size calculations), which was nonsignificantly higher in the preimplantation-genetic-screening group than in the control group (17.1% vs. 11.5%).
Secondary analyses in our trial found implantation rates of 11.7% in the preimplantation-genetic-screening group and 14.7% in the control group. The transfer of embryos that did not undergo biopsy or embryos without a FISH result (for which the implantation rate was 6.0%) contributed to a lower overall implantation rate associated with preimplantation genetic screening in our trial. Nonetheless, our policy of transferring such undetermined embryos, if no embryos with normal FISH results were available, led to additional ongoing pregnancies. The implantation rate in cycles in which two embryos with normal FISH results were transferred (16.8%) was similar to the rates previously reported with preimplantation genetic screening.10,16
The implantation rate, however, is not an appropriate outcome measure for describing the effectiveness of preimplantation genetic screening. It introduces a unit-of-analysis error, since women rather than embryos are randomly assigned to treatment, and an analysis of implantation rates fails to account for the nonindependence of outcomes between different embryos from the same cycle and from the same woman.17 The primary outcome in fertility studies should ideally be live birth, since this is the main goal of fertility treatment. Although our trial was designed with ongoing pregnancy as the primary outcome, live-birth rates mirrored ongoing-pregnancy rates and were also significantly lower in the preimplantation-genetic-screening group than in the control group.
Several mechanisms may be responsible for the failure of preimplantation genetic screening to improve the outcomes of IVF in women of advanced maternal age. It is possible that biopsy of a blastomere on day 3 of embryonic development hampers the potential of an embryo to successfully implant18; however, the effect of biopsy alone on pregnancy rates has not been studied. Furthermore, the limitation in the number of chromosomes that can be analyzed with FISH could lead to the transfer of embryos labeled as normal that are in fact aneuploid for one or more chromosomes not tested. This problem may be overcome in the future by the use of new techniques, such as array comparative genomic hybridization, in which the complete ploidy status can be given for a blastomere after biopsy.19 Finally, many human embryos resulting from IVF may be mosaic,16,20,21 so that the chromosomal constitution revealed by analysis of the blastomere may not be representative of the entire embryo.
Our study was limited to women undergoing preimplantation genetic screening for the indication of advanced maternal age. Whether the results would be different for women with other indications for preimplantation genetic screening is uncertain. In addition, we do not have information on birth defects in the live-born infants, although we are currently collecting such data.
Our study demonstrated that preimplantation genetic screening significantly reduced, rather than increased, the likelihood of an ongoing pregnancy and live birth in women of advanced maternal age. These results argue strongly against routinely performing preimplantation genetic screening as an adjunct to IVF in this group of women.
Supported by a grant (945-03-013) from the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw).
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
We thank M. Offringa, J.B. Reitsma, and W. Ankum for acting as members of the data safety and monitoring committee and all physicians and laboratory personnel from the participating centers for their dedication and assistance.
Source Information
From the Center for Reproductive Medicine (S.M., M.T., J.W.A.V., S.R., F.V.) and the Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (J.C.K., P.M.B.), Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam; the Section of Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (M.T., J.E.-A., N.E.A.V., E.G.J.M.A., M.J.H.), and the Department of Genetics (B.S.-R., C.H.C.M.B.), University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen; and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam (H.R.V.) — all in the Netherlands.
Address reprint requests to Dr. Repping at the Center for Reproductive Medicine, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22700, 1100 DE Amsterdam, the Netherlands, or at s.repping@amc.uva.nl.
- References
References
1
Wright VC ,Schieve LA ,Reynolds MA ,Jeng G . Assisted reproductive technology surveillance -- United States, 2002. MMWR Surveill Summ 2005;54:1-24
Medline2
Andersen AN ,Gianaroli L ,Felberbaum R ,de Mouzon J ,Nygren KG . Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2002: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 2006;21:1680-1697
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline3
Baird DT ,Collins J ,Egozcue J , et al. Fertility and ageing. Hum Reprod Update 2005;11:261-276
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline4
Wilton L . Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening in early human embryos: a review. Prenat Diagn 2002;22:512-518
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline5
Sermon KD ,Michiels A ,Harton G , et al. ESHRE PGD Consortium data collection VI: cycles from January to December 2003 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2004. Hum Reprod 2007;22:323-336
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline6
Verlinsky Y ,Cohen J ,Munne S , et al. Over a decade of experience with preimplantation genetic diagnosis: a multicenter report. Fertil Steril 2004;82:292-294
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline7
Gianaroli L ,Magli MC ,Ferraretti AP ,Munne S . Preimplantation diagnosis for aneuploidies in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization with a poor prognosis: identification of the categories for which it should be proposed. Fertil Steril 1999;72:837-844
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline8
Montag M ,van der Ven K ,Dorn C ,van der Ven H . Outcome of laser-assisted polar body biopsy and aneuploidy testing. Reprod Biomed Online 2004;9:425-429
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline9
Munne S ,Magli C ,Cohen J , et al. Positive outcome after preimplantation diagnosis of aneuploidy in human embryos. Hum Reprod 1999;14:2191-2199
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline10
Munne S ,Sandalinas M ,Escudero T , et al. Improved implantation after preimplantation genetic diagnosis of aneuploidy. Reprod Biomed Online 2003;7:91-97
CrossRef | Medline11
Obasaju M ,Kadam A ,Biancardi T ,Sultan K ,Fateh M ,Munne S . Pregnancies from single normal embryo transfer in women older than 40 years. Reprod Biomed Online 2001;2:98-101
CrossRef | Medline12
Twisk M ,Mastenbroek S ,van Wely M ,Heineman MJ ,van der Veen F ,Repping S . Preimplantation genetic screening for abnormal number of chromosomes (aneuploidies) in in vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006;1:CD005291-CD005291
Medline13
Dozortsev DI ,McGinnis KT . An improved fixation technique for fluorescence in situ hybridization for preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Fertil Steril 2001;76:186-188
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline14
Velilla E ,Escudero T ,Munne S . Blastomere fixation techniques and risk of misdiagnosis for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of aneuploidy. Reprod Biomed Online 2002;4:210-217
CrossRef | Medline15
Puissant F ,Van Rysselberge M ,Barlow P ,Deweze J ,Leroy F . Embryo scoring as a prognostic tool in IVF treatment. Hum Reprod 1987;2:705-708
Web of Science | Medline16
Staessen C ,Platteau P ,Van Assche E , et al. Comparison of blastocyst transfer with or without preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening in couples with advanced maternal age: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2004;19:2849-2858
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline17
Mastenbroek S ,Bossuyt PMM ,Heineman MJ ,Repping S ,van der Veen F . Comment 1 on Staessen et al. (2004): design and analysis of a randomized controlled trial studying preimplantation genetic screening. Hum Reprod 2005;20:2362-2363
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline18
De Vos A ,Van Steirteghem A . Aspects of biopsy procedures prior to preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Prenat Diagn 2001;21:767-780
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline19
Le Caignec C ,Spits C ,Sermon K , et al. Single-cell chromosomal imbalances detection by array CGH. Nucleic Acids Res 2006;34:e68-e68
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline20
Coonen E ,Derhaag JG ,Dumoulin JC , et al. Anaphase lagging mainly explains chromosomal mosaicism in human preimplantation embryos. Hum Reprod 2004;19:316-324
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline21
Munne S ,Alikani M ,Tomkin G ,Grifo J ,Cohen J . Embryo morphology, developmental rates, and maternal age are correlated with chromosome abnormalities. Fertil Steril 1995;64:382-391
Web of Science | Medline
- Citing Articles (156)
Citing Articles
1
Charles J. Lockwood. 2012. Recurrent Spontaneous Abortion. , 260-270.
CrossRef2
J. Harper, M. Cristina Magli, K. Lundin, C. L. R. Barratt, D. Brison. (2012) When and how should new technology be introduced into the IVF laboratory?. Human Reproduction 27:2, 303-313
CrossRef3
Joyce C. Harper, Sioban B. SenGupta. (2012) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: State of the ART 2011. Human Genetics 131:2, 175-186
CrossRef4
A. M. Musters, M. van Wely, S. Mastenbroek, E. M. Kaaijk, S. Repping, F. van der Veen, M. H. Mochtar. (2012) The effect of recombinant LH on embryo quality: a randomized controlled trial in women with poor ovarian reserve. Human Reproduction 27:1, 244-250
CrossRef5
T. Hardarson, A. Ahlstrom, L. Rogberg, L. Botros, T. Hillensjo, G. Westlander, D. Sakkas, M. Wikland. (2012) Non-invasive metabolomic profiling of Day 2 and 5 embryo culture medium: a prospective randomized trial. Human Reproduction 27:1, 89-96
CrossRef6
K. Diedrich, G. Griesinger, S. Al-Hasani, B. Schöpper, G. Fondel, Y. Hellenbroich, G. Gillessen-Kaesbach. (2012) Präimplantationsdiagnostik. Der Gynäkologe 45:1, 41-46
CrossRef7
Alan H. Handyside. (2011) PGD and aneuploidy screening for 24 chromosomes by genome-wide SNP analysis: seeing the wood and the trees. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 23:6, 686-691
CrossRef8
Nicolás Garrido, Antonio Pellicer, Craig Niederberger. (2011) Testing the water before swimming: satisfying the need for clinical trials of devices, media, and instruments before their use in assisted reproduction laboratories. Fertility and Sterility
CrossRef9
J. Geraedts, M. Montag, M. C. Magli, S. Repping, A. Handyside, C. Staessen, J. Harper, A. Schmutzler, J. Collins, V. Goossens, H. van der Ven, K. Vesela, L. Gianaroli. (2011) Polar body array CGH for prediction of the status of the corresponding oocyte. Part I: clinical results. Human Reproduction 26:11, 3173-3180
CrossRef10
Elizabeth S. Ginsburg, Valerie L. Baker, Catherine Racowsky, Ethan Wantman, James Goldfarb, Judy E. Stern. (2011) Use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis and preimplantation genetic screening in the United States: a Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Writing Group paper. Fertility and Sterility 96:4, 865-868
CrossRef11
M. Meseguer, J. Herrero, A. Tejera, K. M. Hilligsoe, N. B. Ramsing, J. Remohi. (2011) The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of embryo implantation. Human Reproduction 26:10, 2658-2671
CrossRef12
William B. Schoolcraft, Nathan R. Treff, John M. Stevens, Kathleen Ferry, Mandy Katz-Jaffe, Richard T. Scott. (2011) Live birth outcome with trophectoderm biopsy, blastocyst vitrification, and single-nucleotide polymorphism microarray–based comprehensive chromosome screening in infertile patients. Fertility and Sterility 96:3, 638-640
CrossRef13
Kim Dao Ly, Ashok Agarwal, Zsolt Peter Nagy. (2011) Preimplantation genetic screening: does it help or hinder IVF treatment and what is the role of the embryo?. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 28:9, 833-849
CrossRef14
Anver Kuliev. 2011. 14 Preimplantation genetic diagnosis in assisted reproduction: medical, ethical, and legal aspects. , 165-174.
CrossRef15
Sandra Zamora, Ana Clavero, M. Carmen Gonzalvo, Juan de Dios Luna del Castillo, Jose Antonio Roldán-Nofuentes, Juan Mozas, Jose Antonio Castilla. (2011) PGS-FISH in reproductive medicine and perspective directions for improvement: a systematic review. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 28:8, 747-757
CrossRef16
S. Mastenbroek, M. Twisk, F. van der Veen, S. Repping. (2011) Preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs. Human Reproduction Update 17:4, 454-466
CrossRef17
M. T. M. Franssen, A. M. Musters, F. van der Veen, S. Repping, N. J. Leschot, P. M. M. Bossuyt, M. Goddijn, J. C. Korevaar. (2011) Reproductive outcome after PGD in couples with recurrent miscarriage carrying a structural chromosome abnormality: a systematic review. Human Reproduction Update 17:4, 467-475
CrossRef18
Karin J. Middelburg, Maaike van der Heide, Bregje Houtzager, Marjolein Jongbloed-Pereboom, Vaclav Fidler, Arend F. Bos, Joke Kok, Mijna Hadders-Algra. (2011) Mental, psychomotor, neurologic, and behavioral outcomes of 2-year-old children born after preimplantation genetic screening: follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Fertility and Sterility 96:1, 165-169
CrossRef19
Aisling Ahlström, Matts Wikland, Lena Rogberg, Jeannette Siques Barnett, Michael Tucker, Thorir Hardarson. (2011) Cross-validation and predictive value of near-infrared spectroscopy algorithms for day-5 blastocyst transfer. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 22:5, 477-484
CrossRef20
Maria D. Lalioti. 2011. Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis. , 155-163.
CrossRef21
Gerasimos Marinakis, Dimitrios Nikolaou. (2011) What is the role of assisted reproduction technology in the management of age-related infertility?. Human Fertility 14:1, 8-15
CrossRef22
Paolo Emanuele Levi Setti, Carlo Bulletti. (2011) Strategies to improve embryo implantation to supraphysiological rates. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1221:1, 75-79
CrossRef23
David H. Barlow. (2011) Interventions in the prolongation of reproductive life in women. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1221:1, 1-9
CrossRef24
Alem S. Gabriel, Terry J. Hassold, Alan R. Thornhill, Nabeel A. Affara, Alan H. Handyside, Darren K. Griffin. (2011) An algorithm for determining the origin of trisomy and the positions of chiasmata from SNP genotype data. Chromosome Research 19:2, 155-163
CrossRef25
Ryuzo Yanagimachi. (2011) Problems of sperm fertility: A reproductive biologist's view. Systems Biology in Reproductive Medicine 57:1-2, 102-114
CrossRef26
N. Bündgen, G. Griesinger, K. Diedrich. (2011) Präimplantationsdiagnostik und Präimplantationsscreening. Der Gynäkologe 44:2, 100-107
CrossRef27
G. Harton, P. Braude, A. Lashwood, A. Schmutzler, J. Traeger-Synodinos, L. Wilton, J. C. Harper. (2011) ESHRE PGD consortium best practice guidelines for organization of a PGD centre for PGD/preimplantation genetic screening. Human Reproduction 26:1, 14-24
CrossRef28
G. L. Harton, J. C. Harper, E. Coonen, T. Pehlivan, K. Vesela, L. Wilton. (2011) ESHRE PGD consortium best practice guidelines for fluorescence in situ hybridization-based PGD. Human Reproduction 26:1, 25-32
CrossRef29
P. Moreau, A. Jaccard, L. Benboubker, B. Royer, X. Leleu, F. Bridoux, G. Salles, V. Leblond, M. Roussel, M. Alakl, O. Hermine, L. Planche, J.-L. Harousseau, J.-P. Fermand. (2010) Lenalidomide in combination with melphalan and dexamethasone in patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis: a multicenter phase 1/2 dose-escalation study. Blood 116:23, 4777-4782
CrossRef30
John J. Orris, Tyl H. Taylor, Janice W. Gilchrist, Susan V. Hallowell, Michael J. Glassner, J. David Wininger. (2010) The utility of embryo banking in order to increase the number of embryos available for preimplantation genetic screening in advanced maternal age patients. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 27:12, 729-733
CrossRef31
Carmen Rubio. (2010) Update on preimplantation genetic diagnosis for chromosomal abnormalities. Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics 10:8, 973-976
CrossRef32
Joep PM Geraedts. (2010) Does additional hybridization also improve preimplantation genetic screening results?. Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics 10:8, 981-985
CrossRef33
Miguel Milán, Ana Cristina Cobo, Lorena Rodrigo, Emilia Mateu, Amparo Mercader, Pilar Buendía, Vanessa Peinado, Arantzazu Delgado, Pere Mir, Carlos Simón, José Remohí, Antonio Pellicer, Carmen Rubio. (2010) Redefining advanced maternal age as an indication for preimplantation genetic screening. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 21:5, 649-657
CrossRef34
Gillian Noble, Catriona Harvey, Caitlin Napier, Marie Curtis-Barton, Michelle McGarraghy, Abha Maheshwari. (2010) Preimplantation genetic screening in advanced maternal age: a systematic review. Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology 5:6, 707-716
CrossRef35
William B. Schoolcraft, Elpida Fragouli, John Stevens, Santiago Munne, Mandy G. Katz-Jaffe, Dagan Wells. (2010) Clinical application of comprehensive chromosomal screening at the blastocyst stage. Fertility and Sterility 94:5, 1700-1706
CrossRef36
Norbert Gleicher, David H. Barad. (2010) Misplaced obsession with prospectively randomized studies. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 21:4, 440-443
CrossRef37
Patricia E. Hershberger, Penny F. Pierce. (2010) Conceptualizing couples’ decision making in PGD: Emerging cognitive, emotional, and moral dimensions. Patient Education and Counseling 81:1, 53-62
CrossRef38
Chantal Bouffard, Julie-Kim Godin, Bénédicte Bévière. (2010) State Intervention in Couples’ Reproductive Decisions: Socioethical Reflections Based on the Practice of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis in France. AJOB Primary Research 1:3, 12-30
CrossRef39
Dagan Wells. (2010) Embryo aneuploidy and the role of morphological and genetic screening. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 21:3, 274-277
CrossRef40
Joyce C. Harper, Gary Harton. (2010) The use of arrays in preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening. Fertility and Sterility 94:4, 1173-1177
CrossRef41
Kerri Marquard, Lynn M. Westphal, Amin A. Milki, Ruth B. Lathi. (2010) Etiology of recurrent pregnancy loss in women over the age of 35 years. Fertility and Sterility 94:4, 1473-1477
CrossRef42
A. Finn, L. Scott, Thomas O’Leary, D. Davies, J. Hill. (2010) Sequential embryo scoring as a predictor of aneuploidy in poor-prognosis patients. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 21:3, 381-390
CrossRef43
E. Seli, C. Robert, M.-A. Sirard. (2010) OMICS in assisted reproduction: possibilities and pitfalls. Molecular Human Reproduction 16:8, 513-530
CrossRef44
N. R. Treff, B. Levy, J. Su, L. E. Northrop, X. Tao, R. T. Scott. (2010) SNP microarray-based 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening is significantly more consistent than FISH. Molecular Human Reproduction 16:8, 583-589
CrossRef45
E. Fragouli, V. Bianchi, P. Patrizio, A. Obradors, Z. Huang, A. Borini, J. D. A. Delhanty, D. Wells. (2010) Transcriptomic profiling of human oocytes: association of meiotic aneuploidy and altered oocyte gene expression. Molecular Human Reproduction 16:8, 570-582
CrossRef46
Richard T. Scott, Nathan R. Treff. (2010) Assessing the reproductive competence of individual embryos: a proposal for the validation of new “-omics” technologies. Fertility and Sterility 94:3, 791-794
CrossRef47
Marie-José Pelinck, Annemieke Hoek, Arnold H.M. Simons, Maas Jan Heineman, Janny van Echten-Arends, Eus G.J.M. Arts. (2010) Embryo quality and impact of specific embryo characteristics on ongoing implantation in unselected embryos derived from modified natural cycle in vitro fertilization. Fertility and Sterility 94:2, 527-534
CrossRef48
Santiago Munné, Dagan Wells, Jacques Cohen. (2010) Technology requirements for preimplantation genetic diagnosis to improve assisted reproduction outcomes. Fertility and Sterility 94:2, 408-430
CrossRef49
M. Rius, A. Obradors, G. Daina, J. Cuzzi, L. Marques, G. Calderon, E. Velilla, O. Martinez-Passarell, M. Oliver-Bonet, J. Benet, J. Navarro. (2010) Reliability of short comparative genomic hybridization in fibroblasts and blastomeres for a comprehensive aneuploidy screening: first clinical application. Human Reproduction 25:7, 1824-1835
CrossRef50
Santiago Munné. (2010) Overview of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology 5:4, 403-408
CrossRef51
P. Mir, L. Rodrigo, E. Mateu, V. Peinado, M. Milan, A. Mercader, P. Buendia, A. Delgado, A. Pellicer, J. Remohi, C. Rubio. (2010) Improving FISH diagnosis for preimplantation genetic aneuploidy screening. Human Reproduction 25:7, 1812-1817
CrossRef52
Ibrahim Hammoud, Denise Molina-Gomes, Martine Albert, Marianne Bergere, Marc Bailly, Robert Wainer, Jacqueline Selva, Francois Vialard. (2010) Are zona pellucida laser drilling and polar body biopsy safe for in vitro matured oocytes?. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 27:7, 423-427
CrossRef53
Joe Leigh Simpson. (2010) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis at 20 years. Prenatal Diagnosis 30:7, 682-695
CrossRef54
Tomohisa Ugajin, Yukihiro Terada, Hisataka Hasegawa, Clarissa L. Velayo, Hiroshi Nabeshima, Nobuo Yaegashi. (2010) Aberrant behavior of mouse embryo development after blastomere biopsy as observed through time-lapse cinematography. Fertility and Sterility 93:8, 2723-2728
CrossRef55
M. Montag, M. Köster, K. Ven, H. Ven. (2010) Polkörperdiagnostik. Gynäkologische Endokrinologie 8:2, 135-140
CrossRef56
J. Harper, E. Coonen, M. De Rycke, F. Fiorentino, J. Geraedts, V. Goossens, G. Harton, C. Moutou, T. Pehlivan Budak, P. Renwick, S. SenGupta, J. Traeger-Synodinos, K. Vesela. (2010) What next for preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)? A position statement from the ESHRE PGD Consortium steering committee . Human Reproduction 25:4, 821-823
CrossRef57
D.S. Johnson, G. Gemelos, J. Baner, A. Ryan, C. Cinnioglu, M. Banjevic, R. Ross, M. Alper, B. Barrett, J. Frederick, D. Potter, B. Behr, M. Rabinowitz. (2010) Preclinical validation of a microarray method for full molecular karyotyping of blastomeres in a 24-h protocol. Human Reproduction 25:4, 1066-1075
CrossRef58
KARIN J. MIDDELBURG, MAAS J. HEINEMAN, MAAIKE L. HAADSMA, AREND F. BOS, JOKE H. KOK, MIJNA HADDERS-ALGRA. (2010) Neurological Condition of Infants Born After In Vitro Fertilization With Preimplantation Genetic Screening. Pediatric Research 67:4, 430-434
CrossRef59
J. Geraedts, J. Collins, L. Gianaroli, V. Goossens, A. Handyside, J. Harper, M. Montag, S. Repping, A. Schmutzler. (2010) What next for preimplantation genetic screening? A polar body approach!. Human Reproduction 25:3, 575-577
CrossRef60
Simon Fishel, Anthony Gordon, Colleen Lynch, Ken Dowell, George Ndukwe, Ehab Kelada, Simon Thornton, Lucy Jenner, Ellen Cater, Anthony Brown, Jose Garcia-Bernardo. (2010) Live birth after polar body array comparative genomic hybridization prediction of embryo ploidy—the future of IVF?. Fertility and Sterility 93:3, 1006.e7-1006.e10
CrossRef61
S Munné, E Fragouli, P Colls, MG Katz-Jaffe, WB Schoolcraft, D Wells. (2010) Improved detection of aneuploid blastocysts using a new 12-chromosome FISH test. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 20:1, 92-97
CrossRef62
Samuel S. Chong, Robert E. Gore-Langton, Mark R. Hughes, Stanislawa Weremowicz. 2010. Single-Cell DNA and FISH Analysis for Application to Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis. .
CrossRef63
Xinyu Liu, Roxanne Fernandes, Andrea Jurisicova, Robert F. Casper, Yu Sun. (2010) In situ mechanical characterization of mouse oocytes using a cell holding device. Lab on a Chip 10:16, 2154
CrossRef64
Norbert Gleicher, David H Barad. (2010) ‘Patient-friendly’ IVF. Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology 5:1, 1-4
CrossRef65
G. Benagiano, S. Carrara, V. Filippi. (2010) Sex and reproduction: an evolving relationship. Human Reproduction Update 16:1, 96-107
CrossRef66
Ning Wang, Ying-Ming Zheng, Lei Li, Fan Jin. (2010) Preimplantation Genetic Screening: An Effective Testing for Infertile and Repeated Miscarriage Patients?. Obstetrics and Gynecology International 2010, 1-6
CrossRef67
J. L. Simpson. (2010) Children born after preimplantation genetic diagnosis show no increase in congenital anomalies. Human Reproduction 25:1, 6-8
CrossRef68
Geoffrey Sher, Levent Keskintepe, Meral Keskintepe, Ghanima Maassarani, Drew Tortoriello, Steven Brody. (2009) Genetic analysis of human embryos by metaphase comparative genomic hybridization (mCGH) improves efficiency of IVF by increasing embryo implantation rate and reducing multiple pregnancies and spontaneous miscarriages. Fertility and Sterility 92:6, 1886-1894
CrossRef69
Sonja Desmyttere, Maryse Bonduelle, Julie Nekkebroeck, Mathieu Roelants, Inge Liebaers, Jean De Schepper. (2009) Growth and health outcome of 102 2-year-old children conceived after preimplantation genetic diagnosis or screening. Early Human Development 85:12, 755-759
CrossRef70
Gerardo Vela, Martha Luna, Benjamin Sandler, Alan B. Copperman. (2009) Advances and Controversies in Assisted Reproductive Technology. Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine: A Journal of Translational and Personalized Medicine 76:6, 506-520
CrossRef71
Kathryn J Go, Jay C Patel, Donna L Cunningham. (2009) The role of assisted reproductive technology in the management of recurrent pregnancy loss. Current Opinion in Endocrinology, Diabetes and Obesity 16:6, 459-463
CrossRef72
E. Vanneste, T. Voet, C. Melotte, S. Debrock, K. Sermon, C. Staessen, I. Liebaers, J.-P. Fryns, T. D'Hooghe, J. R. Vermeesch. (2009) What next for preimplantation genetic screening? High mitotic chromosome instability rate provides the biological basis for the low success rate. Human Reproduction 24:11, 2679-2682
CrossRef73
D.A. Beyer. (2009) Intrauterine Insemination (IUI). Gynäkologische Endokrinologie 7:4, 263-273
CrossRef74
(2009) ASRM Practice Committee response to Rybak and Lieman: elective self-donation of oocytes. Fertility and Sterility 92:5, 1513-1514
CrossRef75
Santiago Munné, Colin M Howles, Dagan Wells. (2009) The role of preimplantation genetic diagnosis in diagnosing embryo aneuploidy. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 21:5, 442-449
CrossRef76
P Colls, N Goodall, X Zheng, S Munné. (2009) Increased efficiency of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy by testing 12 chromosomes. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 19:4, 532-538
CrossRef77
Michael C. Summers, Andrew D. Foland. (2009) Quantitative decision-making in preimplantation genetic (aneuploidy) screening (PGS). Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 26:9-10, 487-502
CrossRef78
JPM Geraedts, GMWR De Wert. (2009) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Clinical Genetics 76:4, 315-325
CrossRef79
Robert Klitzman, Beata Zolovska, William Folberth, Mark V. Sauer, Wendy Chung, Paul Appelbaum. (2009) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis on in vitro fertilization clinic websites: presentations of risks, benefits and other information. Fertility and Sterility 92:4, 1276-1283
CrossRef80
Shiri Barbash-Hazan, Tsvia Frumkin, Mira Malcov, Yuval Yaron, Tania Cohen, Foad Azem, Ami Amit, Dalit Ben-Yosef. (2009) Preimplantation aneuploid embryos undergo self-correction in correlation with their developmental potential. Fertility and Sterility 92:3, 890-896
CrossRef81
C. Rubio, C. Gimenez, E. Fernandez, X. Vendrell, E. Velilla, M. Parriego, L. Rodrigo, . (2009) The importance of good practice in preimplantation genetic screening: critical viewpoints. Human Reproduction 24:8, 2045-2047
CrossRef82
Wei-Hua Wang, Khalied Kaskar, Yuhong Ren, Jimmy Gill, Traci DeSplinter, Ghassan Haddad, Manvinder Singh. (2009) Comparison of development and implantation of human embryos biopsied with two different methods: aspiration and displacement. Fertility and Sterility 92:2, 536-540
CrossRef83
T. Strowitzki, A. Germeyer. (2009) Zukünftige Entwicklungen der Reproduktionsmedizin. Der Gynäkologe 42:7, 516-521
CrossRef84
Claire Basille, René Frydman, Abdelwahab El Aly, Laetitia Hesters, Renato Fanchin, Gérard Tachdjian, Julie Steffann, Marc LeLorc’h, Nelly Achour-Frydman. (2009) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: State of the art. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 145:1, 9-13
CrossRef85
E. R. Hernandez. (2009) What next for preimplantation genetic screening? Beyond aneuploidy. Human Reproduction 24:7, 1538-1541
CrossRef86
P. Devroey, B.C.J.M. Fauser, K. Diedrich, . (2009) Approaches to improve the diagnosis and management of infertility. Human Reproduction Update 15:4, 391-408
CrossRef87
E. Aarden, I. Van Hoyweghen, R. Vos, K. Horstman. (2009) Providing preimplantation genetic diagnosis in the United Kingdom, The Netherlands and Germany: a comparative in-depth analysis of health-care access. Human Reproduction 24:7, 1542-1547
CrossRef88
Samuel A. Pauli, Sarah L. Berga, Weirong Shang, Donna R. Session. (2009) Current Status of the Approach to Assisted Reproduction. Pediatric Clinics of North America 56:3, 467-488
CrossRef89
Miguel A. Checa, Pablo Alonso-Coello, Ivan Solà, Ana Robles, Ramón Carreras, Juan Balasch. (2009) IVF/ICSI with or without preimplantation genetic screening for aneuploidy in couples without genetic disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 26:5, 273-283
CrossRef90
Thomas Haaf, Antje Hahn, Anne Lambrecht, Bärbel Grossmann, Eva Schwaab, Omar Khanaga, Thomas Hahn, Achim Tresch, Martin Schorsch. (2009) A high oocyte yield for intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment is associated with an increased chromosome error rate. Fertility and Sterility 91:3, 733-738
CrossRef91
Dominic Stoop, Paul Devroey. (2009) Arguments against preimplantation aneuploidy screening. Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology 4:2, 115-118
CrossRef92
Susan B.A. Hudson, Charles C. Coddington, David L. Walker, Jolene R. Fredrickson, Dean E. Morbeck. (2009) Preimplantation genetic screening in a case of recurrent trisomy 21 offspring. Fertility and Sterility 91:3, 930.e17-930.e18
CrossRef93
C.E. Beyer, T. Osianlis, K. Boekel, E. Osborne, L. Rombauts, J. Catt, V. Kralevski, B.S. Aali, L. Gras. (2009) Preimplantation genetic screening outcomes are associated with culture conditions. Human Reproduction 24:5, 1212-1220
CrossRef94
P. C. Ho. (2009) New frontiers of assisted reproductive technology (Chien Tien Hsu Memorial Lecture 2007). Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research 35:1, 1-8
CrossRef95
S. Desmyttere, J. De Schepper, J. Nekkebroeck, A. De Vos, M. De Rycke, C. Staessen, I. Liebaers, M. Bonduelle. (2009) Two-year auxological and medical outcome of singletons born after embryo biopsy applied in preimplantation genetic diagnosis or preimplantation genetic screening. Human Reproduction 24:2, 470-476
CrossRef96
(2009) Intrauterine insemination. Human Reproduction Update 15:3, 265-277
CrossRef97
J. C. Harper, S. Repping, D. Hill. (2009) Current controversies in prenatal diagnosis 1: Is aneuploidy testing by PGD indicated for all infertile patients undergoing IVF?. Prenatal Diagnosis 29:1, 2-5
CrossRef98
M Montag, K van der Ven, B Rösing, H van der Ven. (2009) Polar body biopsy: a viable alternative to preimplantation genetic diagnosis and screening. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 18, 6-11
CrossRef99
Beatriz E De la Fuente-Cortés, Ricardo M Cerda-Flores, Martha I Dávila-Rodríguez, Catalina García-Vielma, Rosa M De la Rosa Alvarado, Elva I Cortés-Gutiérrez. (2009) Chromosomal abnormalities and polymorphic variants in couples with repeated miscarriage in Mexico. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 18:4, 543-548
CrossRef100
MC Magli, L Gianaroli, AP Ferraretti, S Gordts, V Fredericks, A Crippa. (2009) Paternal contribution to aneuploidy in preimplantation embryos. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 18:4, 536-542
CrossRef101
Esther B Baart, Nick S Macklon, Bart JCM Fauser. (2009) Ovarian stimulation and embryo quality. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 18, S45-S50
CrossRef102
Anick De Vos and, André Van Steirteghem. 2009. Gamete and Embryo Manipulation. , 759-776.
CrossRef103
Norbert Gleicher, Kutluk Oktay, David H Barad. (2009) Patients are entitled to maximal IVF pregnancy rates. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 18:5, 599-602
CrossRef104
M. Meintjes, S. J. Chantilis, D. C. Ward, J. D. Douglas, A. J. Rodriguez, A. R. Guerami, D. M. Bookout, B. D. Barnett, J. D. Madden. (2008) A randomized controlled study of human serum albumin and serum substitute supplement as protein supplements for IVF culture and the effect on live birth rates. Human Reproduction 24:4, 782-789
CrossRef105
J. Geigl, M. Speicher. (2008) Neue Verfahren für Einzelzellanalysen in Forschung und Diagnostik. medizinische genetik 20:4, 407-415
CrossRef106
CB Lambalk, FJ Broekmans. 2008. The older woman wishing to conceive. , 273-286.
CrossRef107
D. Wells, S. Alfarawati, E. Fragouli. (2008) Use of comprehensive chromosomal screening for embryo assessment: microarrays and CGH. Molecular Human Reproduction 14:12, 703-710
CrossRef108
(2008) Preimplantation genetic testing: a Practice Committee opinion. Fertility and Sterility 90:5, S136-S143
CrossRef109
Fady W Mansour, William M Buckett. (2008) Pregnancy loss following treatment with assisted reproductive technologies. Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology 3:6, 767-774
CrossRef110
Kayhan Yakin, Baris Ata, Nesrin Ercelen, Basak Balaban, Bulent Urman. (2008) The effect of preimplantation genetic screening on the probability of live birth in young women with recurrent implantation failure; a nonrandomized parallel group trial. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 140:2, 224-229
CrossRef111
Jennifer E. Mersereau, Eugene Pergament, Xingqi Zhang, Magdy P. Milad. (2008) Preimplantation genetic screening to improve in vitro fertilization pregnancy rates: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Fertility and Sterility 90:4, 1287-1289
CrossRef112
Nobuaki Ozawa, Tetsuo Maruyama, Takashi Nagashima, Masanori Ono, Toru Arase, Hitoshi Ishimoto, Yasunori Yoshimura. (2008) Pregnancy outcomes of reciprocal translocation carriers who have a history of repeated pregnancy loss. Fertility and Sterility 90:4, 1301-1304
CrossRef113
Yury Verlinsky, Anver Kuliev. (2008) Application of genetic technology: a genuine step towards improving IVF standards. Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology 3:5, 583-585
CrossRef114
Santiago Munné. (2008) Improving pregnancy outcome for IVF patients with preimplantation genetic screening. Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology 3:5, 635-646
CrossRef115
M. Twisk, S. Mastenbroek, A. Hoek, M.-J. Heineman, F. van der Veen, P. M. Bossuyt, S. Repping, J. C. Korevaar. (2008) No beneficial effect of preimplantation genetic screening in women of advanced maternal age with a high risk for embryonic aneuploidy. Human Reproduction 23:12, 2813-2817
CrossRef116
C. Staessen, W. Verpoest, P. Donoso, P. Haentjens, J. Van der Elst, I. Liebaers, P. Devroey. (2008) Preimplantation genetic screening does not improve delivery rate in women under the age of 36 following single-embryo transfer. Human Reproduction 23:12, 2818-2825
CrossRef117
K. Diedrich, G. Griesinger. (2008) Reproduktionsmedizin: Fortschritt wagen – Grenzen erkennen. Der Gynäkologe 41:9, 683-693
CrossRef118
M. von Wolff, M. Ludwig. (2008) Neue reproduktionsmedizinische Techniken. Der Gynäkologe 41:9, 701-713
CrossRef119
Susannah Baruch, David J Kaufman, Kathy L Hudson. (2008) Preimplantation genetic screening: a survey of in vitro fertilization clinics. Genetics in Medicine 10:9, 685-690
CrossRef120
S. Mastenbroek, P. Scriven, M. Twisk, S. Viville, F. Van der Veen, S. Repping. (2008) What next for preimplantation genetic screening? More randomized controlled trials needed?. Human Reproduction 23:12, 2626-2628
CrossRef121
M. A. Fritz. (2008) Perspectives on the efficacy and indications for preimplantation genetic screening: where are we now?. Human Reproduction 23:12, 2617-2621
CrossRef122
B. C.J.M. Fauser. (2008) Preimplantation genetic screening: the end of an affair?. Human Reproduction 23:12, 2622-2625
CrossRef123
J. L. Simpson. (2008) What next for preimplantation genetic screening? Randomized clinical trial in assessing PGS: necessary but not sufficient. Human Reproduction 23:10, 2179-2181
CrossRef124
Anna M. Musters, Mariette Goddijn, Johanna C. Korevaar, Fulco van der Veen, Sebastiaan Mastenbroek, Sjoerd Repping. (2008) Benefits of PGD in patients with recurrent miscarriages?. Fertility and Sterility 90:1, 240-241
CrossRef125
Norbert Gleicher, David H Barad. (2008) Arguments against elective single-embryo transfer. Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology 3:4, 481-486
CrossRef126
Andreas Schröer, Georg Griesinger, Klaus Diedrich. (2008) Arguments for elective single-embryo transfer. Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology 3:4, 475-480
CrossRef127
Ruth B. Lathi, Lynn M. Westphal, Amin A. Milki. (2008) Reply of the Authors: Benefits of PGD in patients with recurrent miscarriages?. Fertility and Sterility 90:1, 241-242
CrossRef128
Maria D Lalioti. (2008) Can preimplantation genetic diagnosis overcome recurrent pregnancy failure?. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 20:3, 199-204
CrossRef129
K. Yakin, B. Urman. (2008) What next for preimplantation genetic screening? A clinician's perspective. Human Reproduction 23:8, 1686-1690
CrossRef130
A. Obradors, E. Fernandez, M. Oliver-Bonet, M. Rius, A. de la Fuente, D. Wells, J. Benet, J. Navarro. (2008) Birth of a healthy boy after a double factor PGD in a couple carrying a genetic disease and at risk for aneuploidy: Case Report. Human Reproduction 23:8, 1949-1956
CrossRef131
Norbert Gleicher, Andrea Weghofer, David Barad. (2008) Preimplantation genetic screening: “established” and ready for prime time?. Fertility and Sterility 89:4, 780-788
CrossRef132
Caroline Mackie Ogilvie. (2008) Preimplantation testing for chromosome aneuploidy. The Obstetrician & Gynaecologist 10:2, 88-92
CrossRef133
Gernot Tews, Omar Shebl, Michael Sommergruber, Jochen Tews, Thomas Ebner, Ursula Postl. (2008) Beeinflusst die IVF-Gesetzgebung unser ärztliches Handeln?. Wiener klinische Wochenschrift 120:5-6, 184-187
CrossRef134
Mahendra Rao, Maureen L. Condic. (2008) Alternative Sources of Pluripotent Stem Cells: Scientific Solutions to an Ethical Dilemma. Stem Cells and Development 17:1, 1-10
CrossRef135
S Mastenbroek, M Twisk, F van der Veen, S Repping. (2008) Preimplantation genetic screening. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 17:2, 293
CrossRef136
Christophe Blockeel, Valerie Schutyser, Anick De Vos, Willem Verpoest, Michel De Vos, Catherine Staessen, Patrick Haentjens, Josiane Van der Elst, Paul Devroey. (2008) Prospectively randomized controlled trial of PGS in IVF/ICSI patients with poor implantation. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 17:6, 848-854
CrossRef137
Ali Hellani, Khaled Abu-Amero, Joseph Azouri, Siham El-Akoum. (2008) Successful pregnancies after application of array-comparative genomic hybridization in PGS-aneuploidy screening. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 17:6, 841-847
CrossRef138
Robert Klitzman, Paul S Appelbaum, Wendy Chung, Mark Sauer. (2008) Anticipating issues related to increasing preimplantation genetic diagnosis use: a research agenda. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 17, 33-42
CrossRef139
Simon Fishel, Colleen Lynch. (2008) Can comparative genomic hybridization improve in vitro fertilization outcomes?. Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology 3:1, 51-58
CrossRef140
Anver Kuliev, Yury Verlinsky. (2008) Why PGD for aneuploidy should benefit reproductive outcome in poor prognosis IVF patients. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 17:2, 294-295
CrossRef141
Tsvia Frumkin, Mira Malcov, Yuval Yaron, Dalit Ben-Yosef. (2008) Elucidating the origin of chromosomal aberrations in IVF embryos by preimplantation genetic analysis. Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology 282:1-2, 112-119
CrossRef142
F Vialard, D Molina Gomes, I Hammoud, M Bergere, R Wainer, M Bailly, R Lombroso, J Selva. (2008) Stability of aneuploidy rate in polar bodies in two cohorts from the same patient. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 17:2, 213-219
CrossRef143
Anver Kuliev, Yury Verlinsky. (2008) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: technological advances to improve accuracy and range of applications. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 16:4, 532-538
CrossRef144
OGJ Naether, K Rudolf, R Fischer, V Baukloh, C Schmidt, K Held. (2008) Pregnancy after vitrification of pronuclear stage oocytes biopsied for polar body aneuploidy screening. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 16:2, 268-270
CrossRef145
Ervin Macas, Gabriele Susanne Merki-Feld, Min Xie, Ruth Stiller, Pawel Pelczar, Bruno Imthurn. (2008) High survival and developmental rates of vitrified mouse zygotes following polar body biopsy. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 16:2, 271-275
CrossRef146
Anver Kuliev, Yury Verlinsky. (2008) Impact of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for chromosomal disorders on reproductive outcome. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 16:1, 9-10
CrossRef147
(2007) Preimplantation genetic testing: a Practice Committee opinion. Fertility and Sterility 88:6, 1497-1504
CrossRef148
Paul Devroey, Bart CJM Fauser. (2007) Preimplantation aneuploidy screening: a research tool for now. The Lancet 370:9604, 1985-1986
CrossRef149
Anver Kuliev, Yury Verlinsky. (2007) Should preimplantation genetic diagnosis be offered universally?. Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology 2:6, 729-733
CrossRef150
(2007) In Vitro Fertilization with Preimplantation Genetic Screening. New England Journal of Medicine 357:17, 1769-1771
Full Text151
Brendan Maher. (2007) Embryo screening 'doesn't improve' pregnancy success. Nature
CrossRef152
Santiago Munné, Luca Gianaroli, Ilan Tur-Kaspa, Cristina Magli, Mireia Sandalinas, Jamie Grifo, David Cram, Semra Kahraman, Yury Verlinsky, Joe L. Simpson. (2007) Substandard application of preimplantation genetic screening may interfere with its clinical success. Fertility and Sterility 88:4, 781-784
CrossRef153
Michael Hopkin. (2007) Doubt cast on fertility technique. news@nature
CrossRef154
Collins, John A., . (2007) Preimplantation Genetic Screening in Older Mothers. New England Journal of Medicine 357:1, 61-63
Full Text155
Jacques Cohen, James A Grifo. (2007) Multicentre trial of preimplantation genetic screening reported in the New England Journal of Medicine: an in-depth look at the findings. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 15:4, 365-366
CrossRef156
Moniek Twisk, Sebastiaan Mastenbroek, Madelon van Wely, Maas Jan Heineman, Fulco Van der Veen, Sjoerd Repping, Moniek Twisk. 2006. Preimplantation genetic screening for abnormal number of chromosomes (aneuploidies) in in vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. .
CrossRef
- Letters
