2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.12.022
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Pregnancy outcome after preimplantation genetic screening or natural conception in couples with unexplained recurrent miscarriage: a systematic review of the best available evidence

Abstract: The objective of this systematic review was to assess live birth rates and miscarriage rates after preimplantation genetic screening or natural conception for unexplained recurrent miscarriage. There were no randomized controlled trials or comparative studies found on this topic. Until data from randomized controlled trials become available, this review summarizes the best available evidence of the efficacy of preimplantation genetic screening vs. natural conception.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
21
0
2

Year Published

2011
2011
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 67 publications
0
21
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…However, we would not expect a dramatic increase in live birth rate following PGS for patients that suffer from RM because PGS only screens for a few number of chromosomal abnormalities, while there is a high incidence of mosaicism in young couples that undergo IVF [26] and the fecundity rate of RM is not low (with a live birth rate of around 35%). Furthermore, although the best available evidence suggests a similar live-birth rate in women with unexplained RM after PGS vs. natural conception (42 vs. 35% respectively), this is still under debate as no RCT or non-randomized comparative studies (directly comparing PGS vs. natural conception) have been performed in this study group [27].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…However, we would not expect a dramatic increase in live birth rate following PGS for patients that suffer from RM because PGS only screens for a few number of chromosomal abnormalities, while there is a high incidence of mosaicism in young couples that undergo IVF [26] and the fecundity rate of RM is not low (with a live birth rate of around 35%). Furthermore, although the best available evidence suggests a similar live-birth rate in women with unexplained RM after PGS vs. natural conception (42 vs. 35% respectively), this is still under debate as no RCT or non-randomized comparative studies (directly comparing PGS vs. natural conception) have been performed in this study group [27].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…ESHRE's previously noted effort to set up a prospectively randomized multicenter study also suggests a healthy level of skepticism, and confirms PGS as an experimental procedure of no proven clinical effectiveness, yet. Published reviews in the literature are confirmatory [6,33,34]. PGS utilization to improve pregnancy and miscarriage rates, based on currently available data [1,2,7,9,29,30,35,36] should, therefore, only occur under study conditions, and with appropriate informed consents.…”
Section: The Current Status Of Pgsmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…Zur Vermeidung chromosomaler Abortursachen tritt die Präimplantationsdiagnostik (PID) zum Nachweis von Chromosomenfehlverteilungen ("preimplantation genetic screening", PGS) immer stärker in den Vordergrund [40]. Literaturübersichten (.…”
Section: Cmeunclassified
“…Tab. 1) zum Thema zeigen jedoch, dass es derzeit keine großangelegten, aussagekräftigen Studien gibt, die eine PGS bei RSA-Patientinnen in der Routine nahelegen [40].…”
Section: Cmeunclassified