Intra- and inter-observer analysis in the morphological assessment of early-stage embryos

Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology

Volumn 7, Issue , 2009, Pages 105-

  Paternot, Goedele ^a   Devroe, Johanna ^a   Debrock, Sophie ^a   D'Hooghe, Thomas M ^a   Spiessens, Carl ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BLASTOMERE; DEVELOPMENTAL STAGE; EMBRYO; EMBRYO AXIS; EMBRYO DEVELOPMENT; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE DISPLAY; MORPHOLOGY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PRONUCLEUS; SCORING SYSTEM; TRAINING;

ADULT; BLASTOCYST; CLEAVAGE STAGE, OVUM; EMBRYOLOGY; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; QUALITY CONTROL; RESEARCH DESIGN; SINGLE-BLIND METHOD;

EID: 70449515664     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14777827     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1477-7827-7-105     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Baczkowski T, Kurzawa R, Glabowski W. Methods of embryo scoring in in vitro fertilization. Reprod Biol 2004, 4:5-22.
2. Fisch JD, Rodriguez H, Ross R, Overby G, Sher G. The graduated embryo score (GES) predicts blastocyst formation and pregnancy rate from cleavage-stage embryos. Hum Reprod 2001, 16:1970-1975. 10.1093/humrep/16.9.1970, 11527907.
3. Desai N, Goldstein J, Rowland D, Goldfarb JM. Morphological evaluation of human embryos and derivation of an embryo quality scoring system specific for day 3 embryos: a preliminary study. Hum Reprod 2000, 15:2190-2196. 10.1093/humrep/15.10.2190, 11006197.
4. Holte J, Berglund L, Milton K, Garello C, Gennarelli G, Revelli A, Bergh T. Construction of an evidence-based integrated morphology cleavage embryo score for implantation potential of embryos scored and transferred on day 2 after oocyte retrieval. Hum Reprod 2007, 22:548-557. 10.1093/humrep/del403, 17095516.
5. Altman DG, Royston P. What do we mean by validating a prognostic model?. Stat Med 2000, 19:453-473. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(20000229)19:4<453::AID-SIM350>3.0.CO;2-5, 10694730.
6. Mol BW, Lijmer JG, Evers JL, Bossuyt PM. Characteristics of good diagnostic studies. Semin Reprod Med 2003, 21:17-25. 10.1055/s-2003-39991, 12806556.
7. Roux C, Joanne C, Agnani G, Fromm M, Clavequin MC, Bresson JL. Morphometric parameters of living human in-vitro fertilization embryos: importance of asynchronous division process. Hum Reprod 1995, 10:1201-1207.
8. Baxter Bendus AE, Mayer JF, Shipley SK, Catherino WH. Interobserver and intra-observer variation in day 3 embryo grading. Fertil Steril 2006, 86:1608-1615. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.05.037, 17074349.
9. Arce JC, Ziebe S, Lundin K, Janssens R, Helmgaard L, Sorensen P. Interobserver agreement and intraobserver reproducibility of embryo quality assessments. Hum Reprod 2006, 21:2141-2148. 10.1093/humrep/del106, 16606640.
10. Landis JR. The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics 1977, 3:159-174.
11. Chicchetti DV. Assessing Inter-Rater Reliability for Rating Scales: Resolving some basic issues. Br J Psychiatry 1976, 129:452-456. 10.1192/bjp.129.5.452, 1033010.
12. Van Soom A, Ysebaert MT, Vanhoucke-De Medts A, Velde A, Merton S, Delval A, Van Langendonckt A, Donnay I, Vanroose G, Bols PE, de Kuif A. Sucrose-induced shrinkage of in vitro produced bovine morulae: effect on viability, morphology and ease of evaluation. Theriogenology 1996, 46:1131-1147. 10.1016/S0093-691X(96)00285-3, 16727977.