ReviewJBRA assisted reproduction2024
Morphological assessment of oocyte quality during assisted reproductive technology cycle.
Review in JBRA assisted reproduction, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Biomarker candidates for oocyte and embryo quality assessment in assisted reproduction: A systematic review.JBRA assisted reproduction · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Article
- Applications of artificial intelligence in bovine reproductive assessment: focus on oocytes and blastocysts.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Review
- Choice of laboratory insemination protocol for patients with emergency oocyte retrieval in natural cycles.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Reproductive Health and Assisted Conception in Celiac Disease and Non-Celiac Gluten Sensitivity: A Narrative Review.Nutrients · 2025Review
- The future of embryo engineering and fertility research in interdisciplinary collaboration.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025Review
- The quality of human eggs and its pre-IVF incubation.Reproductive medicine and biologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Following the advancement of medically assisted reproduction (MAR) technology, and the rationale to extend the culture to the blastocyst stage, performing elective single embryo transfer (eSET), gamete quality and assessment have acquired large relevance in ART. Embryo quality is strictly correlated with gametes quality and culture conditions. Oocyte maturity assessment is therefore imperative for fertilization and embryo evolution. Mature oocytes at the metaphase II stage result in a higher fertilization rate compared to immature oocytes. Indeed, oocyte morphology evaluation represents an important and challenging task that may serve as a valuable prognostic tool for future embryo development and implantation potential. Different grading systems have been reported to assess human embryos, however, in many cases, it is still a major challenge to select the single embryo to transfer with the highest implantation potential. Further, eSET has conferred a challenge to embryologists, who must try to enhance embryo culture and selection to provide an adequate success rate, whilst reducing the overall number of embryos transferred. Above the standard morphological assessment, there are several invasive or non-invasive approaches for embryo selection such as preimplantation genetic testing, time-lapse technology, proteomics and metabolomics, as well as oxygen utilization and analysis of oxidative stress in culture medium. This short review is not designed to be a comprehensive review of all possible features that may influence oocyte quality. It does give, however, a brief overview and describes the prognostic value of the morphological characteristics of human oocytes on their developmental capacity following ART treatments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.