Interobserver and intraobserver variation in day 3 embryo grading

Fertility and Sterility

Volumn 86, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 1608-1615

  Baxter Bendus, Allison E ^a,d   Mayer, Jacob F ^b   Shipley, Sharon K ^c   Catherino, William H ^d  

^a IVF   (United States)

^b The Jones Institute for Reproductive Medicine   (United States)

^c Shady Grove Fertility Reproductive Science Center   (United States)

^d UNIFORMED SERVICES UNIVERSITY OF THE HEALTH SCIENCES   (United States)

Author keywords

cleaving stage embryos; Day 3 embryos; embryo grading; in vitro fertilization; kappa scores

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; EMBRYO; EMBRYO DEVELOPMENT; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; HUMAN; MEDICAL PRACTICE; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL; VALIDATION PROCESS; VIDEORECORDING;

EMBRYO; EMBRYO TRANSFER; EMBRYOLOGY; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; HUMANS; OBSERVER VARIATION; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33751185333     PISSN: 00150282     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.05.037     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2002. Palladian Partners, Inc.
2. Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1997. Palladian Partners, Inc.
3. Cummins J.M., Breen T.M., Harrison K.L., Shaw J.M., Wilson L.M., and Hennessey J.F. A formula for scoring human growth rates in in vitro fertilization: its value for predicting pregnancy and in comparison with visual estimates of embryo quality. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf 3 (1986) 284-295
4. Gerris J., DeNeubourg D., Mangelschots K., Van Royen E., Van de Meerssche M., and Valkanburg M. Prevention of twin pregnancy after in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection based on strict embryo criteria: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Hum Reprod 14 (1999) 2581-2587
5. Van Rosen E., Mangelschots K., DeNeubourg D., Valkanburg M., Van de Meerssche M., Ryckaert G., et al. Characterization of a top quality embryo, a step towards single embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 14 (1999) 2345-2349
6. Roseboom T.J., and Vermeiden J.P.W. Evaluation of embryo scoring systems and their value in predicting in vitro fertilization outcome. Assist Reprod Rev 5 (1995) 53-59
7. Veeck L.L. Oocyte assessment and biological performance. Ann NY Acad Sci 541 (1989) 259-274
8. Desai N., Goldstein J., Rowland D.Y., and Goldfarb J. Morphological evaluation of human embryos and derivation of an embryo quality scoring system specific for day 3 embryos: a preliminary study. Hum Reprod 15 (2000) 2190-2196
9. Puissant F., Van Rysselberge M., Barlow P., Deweze J., and Leroy F. Embryo scoring as a prognostic tool in IVF treatment. Hum Reprod 2 (1987) 705-708
10. Steer C.V., Mills C.L., Tan S.L., Campbell S., and Edwards R.G. The cumulative embryo score: a predictive embryo scoring technique to select the optimal number of embryos to transfer in an in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer programme. Hum Reprod 7 (1992) 117-119
11. Hoover L., Baker A., Check J.H., Lurie D., and O'Shaughnessy A. Evaluation of a new embryo grading system to predict pregnancy rates following in vitro fertilization. Gynecol Obstet Invest 40 (1995) 151-157
12. Rienzi L., Ubaldi F., Iacobelli M., Ferrero S., Minasi M.G., Martinez F., et al. Day 3 embryo transfer with combined evaluation at the pronuclear and cleavage stages compares favourably with day 5 blastocyst transfer. Hum Reprod 17 (2002) 1852-1855
13. Fisch J.D., Rodriguez H., Ross R., Overby G., and Sher G. The graduated embryo score (GES) predicts blastocyst formation and pregnancy rate from cleavage-stage embryos. Hum Reprod 16 (2001) 1970-1975
14. Miglior S., Albe E., Guareschi M., Mandelli G., Gomarasco S., and Orzales N. Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility in the evaluation of ultrasonic pachymetry measurements of central corneal thickness. Br J Ophthalmol 88 (2004) 174-177
15. Erasmus J.J., Gladish G.W., Broemling L., Sabloff B.S., Truong M.T., Herbst R.S., et al. Inter-observer and intra-observer variability in measurement of non-small cell carcinoma lung lesions: implications for assessment of tumor response. J Clin Oncol 21 (2003) 2574-2582
16. Ingeholm P., Pederson L., and Holck S. Quantification of microvessel density of breast carcinoma: an assessment of inter- and intra variability. The Breast 8 (1999) 251-256
17. Lee D., Arsian B., Queiroz R., and Waldman D. Assessment of inter- and intraobserver agreement between intravascular US and aortic angiography of thoracic aortic injury. Radiology 227 (2003) 434-439
18. Tezuka F., Namiki T., and Higashiiwai H. Observer variability in endometrial cytology using K statistics. J Clin Pathol 45 (1992) 292-294
19. Simmonds M., Jeffrey H., Watson G., and Russell P. Intraobserver and interobserver variability for the histologic diagnosis of chorioanmionitis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 190 (2004) 152-155
20. Al-Aynati M., Chen V., Salama S., Shuhaibar H., Treleaven D., and Vincic L. Interobserver and intraobserver variability using the Furman grading system for renal cell carcinoma. Arch Pathol Lab Med 127 (2003) 593-596
21. Hsu M., Mayer J., Aronshon M., Lanzendorf S., Muasher S., Kolm P., et al. Embryo implantation in in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection: impact of cleavage status, morphology grade, and number of embryos transferred. Fertil Steril 72 (1999) 679-685
22. Gardner D.K., and Sakkas D. Assessment of embryo viability: the ability to select a single embryo for transfer-a review. Placenta 24 (2003) S5-S12