↓ Skip to main content

Randomized comparison of next-generation sequencing and array comparative genomic hybridization for preimplantation genetic screening: a pilot study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Genomics, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
143 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
Randomized comparison of next-generation sequencing and array comparative genomic hybridization for preimplantation genetic screening: a pilot study
Published in
BMC Medical Genomics, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12920-015-0110-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhihong Yang, James Lin, John Zhang, Wai Ieng Fong, Pei Li, Rong Zhao, Xiaohong Liu, William Podevin, Yanping Kuang, Jiaen Liu

Abstract

Recent advances in next-generation sequencing (NGS) have provided new methods for preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) of human embryos from in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles. However, there is still limited information about clinical applications of NGS in IVF and PGS (IVF-PGS) treatments. The present study aimed to investigate the effects of NGS screening on clinical pregnancy and implantation outcomes for PGS patients in comparison to array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) screening. This study was performed in two phases. Phase I study evaluated the accuracy of NGS for aneuploidy screening in comparison to aCGH. Whole-genome amplification (WGA) products (n = 164) derived from previous IVF-PGS cycles (n = 38) were retrospectively analyzed with NGS. The NGS results were then compared with those of aCGH. Phase II study further compared clinical pregnancy and implantation outcomes between NGS and aCGH for IVF-PGS patients. A total of 172 patients at mean age 35.2 ± 3.5 years were randomized into two groups: 1) NGS (Group A): patients (n = 86) had embryos screened with NGS and 2) aCGH (Group B): patients (n = 86) had embryos screened with aCGH. For both groups, blastocysts were vitrified after trophectoderm biopsy. One to two euploid blastocysts were thawed and transferred to individual patients primarily based on the PGS results. Ongoing pregnancy and implantation rates were compared between the two study groups. NGS detected all types of aneuploidies of human blastocysts accurately and provided a 100 % 24-chromosome diagnosis consistency with the highly validated aCGH method. Moreover, NGS screening identified euploid blastocysts for transfer and resulted in similarly high ongoing pregnancy rates for PGS patients compared to aCGH screening (74.7 % vs. 69.2 %, respectively, p >0.05). The observed implantation rates were also comparable between the NGS and aCGH groups (70.5 % vs. 66.2 %, respectively, p >0.05). While NGS screening has been recently introduced to assist IVF patients, this is the first randomized clinical study on the efficiency of NGS for preimplantation genetic screening in comparison to aCGH. With the observed high accuracy of 24-chromosome diagnosis and the resulting high ongoing pregnancy and implantation rates, NGS has demonstrated an efficient, robust high-throughput technology for PGS.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
Croatia 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 139 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 15%
Student > Master 20 14%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Other 12 8%
Other 25 17%
Unknown 26 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 38 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 36 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 15%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 1%
Other 8 6%
Unknown 33 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 01 June 2021.
All research outputs
#4,442,400
of 22,815,414 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Genomics
#207
of 1,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,846
of 263,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Genomics
#11
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,815,414 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,223 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 263,968 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.