title: Preimplantation genetic screening: back to the future.
abstract: 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?
authors.affiliation: Center for Reproductive Medicine, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Q3-119, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands s.mastenbroek@amc.uva.nl.
authors.forename: Sebastiaan
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Mastenbroek
authors.affiliation: Center for Reproductive Medicine, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Q3-119, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: Sjoerd
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Repping
mesh_terms: D047108:Embryonic Development; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D017404:In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence; D011247:Pregnancy; D018873:Pregnancy Rate; D019836:Preimplantation Diagnosis / Q000379:methods* / Q000592:standards / Q000639:trends; D027724:Reproductive Techniques, Assisted / Q000592:standards / Q000639:trends
keywords: IVF/ICSI; PGS; aneuploidy; efficacy; randomized controlled trials