Entity

Time filter

Source Type

North Reading, MA, United States

Balaban B.,Assisted Reproduction Unit | Brison D.,St Marys Hospital | Calderon G.,IVI Barcelona | Catt J.,Optimal IVF | And 17 more authors.
Reproductive BioMedicine Online | Year: 2011

This paper reports the proceedings of an international consensus meeting on oocyte and embryo morphology assessment. Following background presentations about current practice, the expert panel developed a set of consensus points to define the minimum criteria for oocyte and embryo morphology assessment. It is expected that the definition of common terminology and standardization of laboratory practice related to embryo morphology assessment will result in more effective comparisons of treatment outcomes. This document is intended to be referenced as a global consensus to allow standardized reporting of the minimum dataset required for the accurate description of embryo development. This paper reports the proceedings and outcomes of an international consensus meeting on human oocyte and embryo morphology assessment. An expert panel developed a series of consensus points to define the minimum criteria for such assessments. The definition of common terminology, and standardization of laboratory practices related to these morphological assessments, will permit more effective comparisons of treatment outcomes around the world. This report is intended to be referenced as a global consensus to allow standardized reporting of the minimum descriptive criteria required for routine clinical evaluations of human embryo development in vitro. © 2011 ALPHA Scientists in Reproductive Medicine and the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Source


Balaban B.,Assisted Reproduction Unit | Brison D.,St Marys Hospital | Calderon G.,IVI Barcelona | Catt J.,Optimal IVF | And 18 more authors.
Human Reproduction | Year: 2011

BACKGROUND: Many variations in oocyte and embryo grading make inter-laboratory comparisons extremely difficult. This paper reports the proceedings of an international consensus meeting on oocyte and embryo morphology assessment. Methods Background presentations about current practice were given. Results The expert panel developed a set of consensus points to define the minimum criteria for oocyte and embryo morphology assessment. CONCLUSIONS It is expected that the definition of common terminology and standardization of laboratory practice related to embryo morphology assessment will result in more effective comparisons of treatment outcomes. This document is intended to be referenced as a global consensus to allow standardized reporting of the minimum data set required for the accurate description of embryo development. © The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. Source


Finn A.,Fertility Centers of New England | Scott L.,Fertility Centers of New England | O'Leary T.,Fertility Centers of New England | Davies D.,Fertility Centers of New England | Hill J.,Fertility Centers of New England
Reproductive BioMedicine Online | Year: 2010

The delivery rates of 298 patients having preimplantation genetic diagnosis with aneuploidy screening (PGS) were compared with the delivery rates of 144 PGS patients that cancelled the plan for PGS with embryo transfer on day 2 or day 3. The goal of this study was to compare the impact of embryo de-selection with PGS to embryo selection using sequential embryo scoring (SES) on outcome in poor-prognosis patients. Embryos with good sequential scores were more likely to have a normal PGS result than embryos with poor SES scores (34% versus 12%; P < 0.05). Patients proceeding with PGS had an overall delivery rate of 15% per oocyte retrieval. There was a significant difference in delivery rates between patients with less than six embryos and patients with greater than six embryos (6% versus 19%; P < 0.005). The overall delivery rate for patients having transfers without PGS was 23% (P < 0.05 compared with PGS patients) with no difference between low and good responders. It was concluded that PGS neither enhanced nor impaired delivery rates in high responding poor-prognosis patients yet SES may be more accurate than PGS as a means of selection for low-responding poor-prognosis patients. © 2010, Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Source

Discover hidden collaborations