The Center of Human Reproduction, a world-leading New York fertility center, calls for a more unbiased discussion of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) in infertility care.This article was originally distributed via 24-7 Press Release Newswire. 24-7 Press Release Newswire, WorldNow and this Site make no warranties or representations in connection therewith.
NEW YORK, NY, June 23, 2014 /24-7PressRelease/ -- In the latest piece in OPINIONs
, an online commentary series, the Center for Human Reproduction (CHR) warns against the premature reintroduction of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)
into routine infertility care. Inherent biases in peer review, CHR points out, contribute to the reintroduction.
PGS is a method of embryo selection, used in association with in vitro fertilization (IVF), that aims to remove genetically abnormal embryos before embryo transfer into the uterus, thereby, theoretically, increasing chances of IVF success. The procedure first gained popularity approximately 10 years ago, and was widely used before it was demonstrated to have the potential of actually reducing pregnancy chances, especially in older women.
CHR was then the first center to warn against the procedure's potential to cause harm but the warnings went unheeded. Eventually, research by European investigators gained attention, and PGS fell into relative disrepute, with professional organizations formally releasing statements about its ineffectiveness.
Despite lack of any evidence that recently introduced, technologically superior PGS can improve IVF pregnancy chances, the new form of PGS is gaining popularity once again. CHR, however, cautions that claims about efficacy of this new PGS, found in even prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals, are based on inappropriate study designs and incorrect statistical data analyses. Moreover, none of these publications so far established a specific patient population in which use of PGS may, indeed, be beneficial.
Acceptance of misleading articles by peer-reviewed medical journals is, likely, the result of a typical shortcoming of the peer review process. Reviewers selected by editors are usually experts in the area of science where they are asked to review manuscripts. Experts on PGS are, however, mostly intellectually invested in the theoretically very attractive concept of PGS, or have financial ties to laboratories that perform PGS. Their conscious or unconscious biases, therefore not surprisingly, contribute to acceptance of manuscripts with serious shortcomings, and exclusion of manuscripts with opposing viewpoints. CHR calls for a more unbiased discussion of advantages and disadvantages of PGS in the medical literature.
The full-length commentary on the subject
can be found on CHR's website.
About the Center for Human Reproduction
The Center for Human Reproduction (CHR), located in New York City, is one of the world's leading clinical and research centers in reproductive medicine and infertility. Always vocal on issues impacting fertility patients, CHR has become a prominent opinion leader in the field, repeatedly initiating important discussions, leading to changes in practice patterns. Information contained on this page is provided by an independent third-party content provider. WorldNow and this Station make no warranties or representations in connection therewith. If you have any questions or comments about this page please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
For the original version on 24-7 Press Release Newswire visit: http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/bias-in-peer-review-contributing-to-unfounded-reintroduction-of-pgs-into-ivf-warn-chr-investigators-in-latest-opinions-commentary-388466.php