↓ Skip to main content

Different effectiveness of closed embryo culture system with time-lapse imaging (EmbryoScopeTM) in comparison to standard manual embryology in good and poor prognosis patients: a prospectively…

Overview of attention for article published in Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#21 of 975)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
10 news outlets
twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Different effectiveness of closed embryo culture system with time-lapse imaging (EmbryoScopeTM) in comparison to standard manual embryology in good and poor prognosis patients: a prospectively randomized pilot study
Published in
Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12958-016-0181-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yan-Guang Wu, Emanuela Lazzaroni-Tealdi, Qi Wang, Lin Zhang, David H. Barad, Vitaly A. Kushnir, Sarah K. Darmon, David F. Albertini, Norbert Gleicher

Abstract

Previously manual human embryology in many in vitro fertilization (IVF) centers is rapidly being replaced by closed embryo incubation systems with time-lapse imaging. Whether such systems perform comparably to manual embryology in different IVF patient populations has, however, never before been investigated. We, therefore, prospectively compared embryo quality following closed system culture with time-lapse photography (EmbryoScope™) and standard embryology. We performed a two-part prospectively randomized study in IVF (clinical trial # NCT92256309). Part A involved 31 infertile poor prognosis patients prospectively randomized to EmbryoScope™ and standard embryology. Part B involved embryos from 17 egg donor-recipient cycles resulting in large egg/embryo numbers, thus permitting prospectively alternative embryo assignments to EmbryoScope™ and standard embryology. We then compared pregnancy rates and embryo quality on day-3 after fertilization and embryologist time utilized per processed embryo. Part A revealed in poor prognosis patients no differences in day-3 embryo scores, implantation and clinical pregnancy rates between EmbryoScope™ and standard embryology. The EmbryoScope™, however, more than doubled embryology staff time (P < 0.0001). In Part B, embryos grown in the EmbyoScope™ demonstrated significantly poorer day-3 quality (depending on embryo parameter between P = 0.005 and P = 0.01). Suspicion that conical culture dishes of the EmbryoScope™ (EmbryoSlide™) may be the cause was disproven when standard culture dishes demonstrated no outcome difference in standard incubation. Though due to small patient numbers preliminary, this study raises concerns about the mostly uncontrolled introduction of closed incubation systems with time lapse imaging into routine clinical embryology. Appropriately designed and powered prospectively randomized studies appear urgently needed in well-defined patient populations before the uncontrolled utilization of these instruments further expands. NCT02246309 Registered September 18, 2014.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 92 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Researcher 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 19 21%
Unknown 31 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Engineering 4 4%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 33 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 85. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 October 2018.
All research outputs
#421,827
of 22,886,568 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology
#21
of 975 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,323
of 341,473 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,886,568 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 975 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,473 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.