Between-laboratory reproducibility of time-lapse embryo selection using qualitative and quantitative parameters: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Document Type

Journal Article

Publication Title

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

ISSN

10580468

Volume

37

Issue

6

First Page

1295

Last Page

1302

PubMed ID

32361919

Publisher

Springer

School

School of Medical and Health Sciences

RAS ID

34144

Comments

Liu, Y., Qi, F., Matson, P., Morbeck, D. E., Mol, B. W., Zhao, S., & Afnan, M. (2020). Between-laboratory reproducibility of time-lapse embryo selection using qualitative and quantitative parameters: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 37(6), 1295 – 1302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-020-01789-4

Abstract

© 2020, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature. Purpose: To investigate the between-laboratory reproducibility of embryo selection/deselection effectiveness using qualitative and quantitative time-lapse parameters. Methods: A systematic search was performed on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (up to February 2020) without restriction on date, language, document type, and publication status. Measuring outcomes included implantation, blastulation, good-quality blastocyst formation, and euploid blastocyst. Results: We detected 6 retrospective cohort studies externally validating the first clinical time-lapse model (Meseguer) emphasizing quantitative parameters, of which 3 (including one involving 2 independent centers) were included for the pooled analysis. Receiver operating characteristics analysis showed reduced predictive power of the model when either including or not including sister clinic validation. Fifteen cohort studies evaluating qualitative parameters were included for meta-analysis, and the mean Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was 5.3. Overall, meta-analysis showed significantly adverse association between the presence of ≥ 1 cleavage abnormalities and embryo implantation rates (11 studies, n = 7266; RR = 0.39[0.28, 0.55]95% CI; I2 = 57%). Further analysis showed adverse impacts of direct cleavage (7 studies, n = 7065; RR = 0.28 [0.15, 0.54] 95% CI; I2 = 46%), reverse cleavage (2 studies, n = 3622; RR = 0.16 [0.03, 0.75] 95% CI; I2 = 0%), chaotic cleavage (2 studies, n = 3643; RR = 0.11 [0.02, 0.69] 95% CI; I2 = 24%), and multinucleation (5 studies, n = 2576; RR = 0.59 [0.50, 0.69] 95% CI; I2 = 0%), but not the < 6 intercellular contact points at the 4-cell stage (1 study, n = 185; RR = 0.17 [0.02, 1.15] 95% CI). Conclusions: Qualitative time-lapse parameters are reliably associated with embryo developmental potential among laboratories, whereas the reproducibility of time-lapse embryo selection model that emphasizes quantitative parameters may be compromised when externally applied.

DOI

10.1007/s10815-020-01789-4

Access Rights

subscription content

Link to Full Text

Share

 
COinS