↓ Skip to main content

Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) still in search of a clinical application: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
80 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
137 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
Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) still in search of a clinical application: a systematic review
Published in
Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology, March 2014
DOI 10.1186/1477-7827-12-22
Pubmed ID
Authors

Norbert Gleicher, Vitaly A Kushnir, David H Barad

Abstract

Only a few years ago the American Society of Assisted Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and the British Fertility Society declared preimplantation genetic screening (PGS#1) ineffective in improving in vitro fertilization (IVF) pregnancy rates and in reducing miscarriage rates. A presumably upgraded form of the procedure (PGS#2) has recently been reintroduced, and is here assessed in a systematic review. PGS#2 in comparison to PGS#1 is characterized by: (i) trophectoderm biopsy on day 5/6 embryos in place of day-3 embryo biopsy; and (ii) fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH) of limited chromosome numbers is replaced by techniques, allowing aneuploidy assessments of all 24 chromosome pairs. Reviewing the literature, we were unable to identify properly conducted prospective clinical trials in which IVF outcomes were assessed based on "intent to treat". Whether PGS#2 improves IVF outcomes can, therefore, not be determined. Reassessments of data, alleged to support the efficacy of PGS#2, indeed, suggest the opposite. Like with PGS#1, the introduction of PGS#2 into unrestricted IVF practice again appears premature, and threatens to repeat the PGS#1 experience, when thousands of women experienced reductions in IVF pregnancy chances, while expecting improvements. PGS#2 is an unproven and still experimental procedure, which, until evidence suggests otherwise, should only be offered under study conditions, and with appropriate informed consents.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Turkey 2 1%
Australia 1 <1%
Saudi Arabia 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 129 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 15%
Student > Master 18 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 12%
Student > Bachelor 15 11%
Professor 11 8%
Other 36 26%
Unknown 20 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 54 39%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 37 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 1%
Chemistry 2 1%
Other 5 4%
Unknown 22 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 08 December 2016.
All research outputs
#2,607,773
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology
#119
of 1,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,552
of 235,371 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,134 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 235,371 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.