2012
DOI: 10.1007/s10815-012-9871-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A review of, and commentary on, the ongoing second clinical introduction of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) to routine IVF practice

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
31
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
4

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 38 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
1
31
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These observations may at least partially explain why embryo morphology is only relatively poorly associated with embryo ploidy [16], and why the procedure of PGS so far has failed to improve IVF outcomes [17].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These observations may at least partially explain why embryo morphology is only relatively poorly associated with embryo ploidy [16], and why the procedure of PGS so far has failed to improve IVF outcomes [17].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although the newest PGS methodologies improve the accuracy of aneuploidy diagnosis when compared with older methods, investigations that examine how these new variables affect the target population of patients who would most benefit from PGS are lacking (Gleicher and Barad 2012).…”
Section: Karyotype the Couple Experiencing Rplmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We, therefore, cautioned from uncritically accepting the notion that improvements in PGS#1 techniques and technologies, alone, would improve IVF outcomes [12]. …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%