TY - JOUR
T1 - Preimplantation genetic screening: back to the future
AU - Mastenbroek, Sebastiaan
AU - Repping, Sjoerd
PY - 2014
Y1 - 2014
N2 - All agree that in hindsight the rapid adoption of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) using cleavage stage biopsy and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in routine clinical practice without proper evaluation of (cost-)effectiveness basically resulted in couples paying more money for a less effective treatment. Now, almost 20 years later, we are on the verge of a new era of PGS. But have things really changed or are we simply going back to the future?
AB - All agree that in hindsight the rapid adoption of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) using cleavage stage biopsy and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in routine clinical practice without proper evaluation of (cost-)effectiveness basically resulted in couples paying more money for a less effective treatment. Now, almost 20 years later, we are on the verge of a new era of PGS. But have things really changed or are we simply going back to the future?
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu163
DO - https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu163
M3 - Article
C2 - 25006207
SN - 0268-1161
VL - 29
SP - 1846
EP - 1850
JO - Human reproduction (Oxford, England)
JF - Human reproduction (Oxford, England)
IS - 9
ER -