What are the current recommended criteria for morphological assessment of oocytes, zygotes and embryos? The present ESHRE/Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine consensus document provides several novel recommendations to assess oocyte and embryo morphology and rank embryos for transfer. A previous Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine/ESHRE consensus on oocyte and embryo morphological assessment was published in 2011. After more than a decade, and the integration of time-lapse technology into embryo culture and assessment, a thorough review and update was needed. A working group consisting of Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine executive committee members and ESHRE Special interest group of Embryology members formulated recommendations on oocyte and embryo assessment. The working group included 17 internationally recognized experts with extensive experience in clinical embryology. Seven members represented Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine and eight members represented ESHRE, along with to two methodological experts from the ESHRE central office. Based on a systematic literature search and discussion of existing evidence, the recommendations of the Istanbul Consensus (2011) were reassessed and, where appropriate, updated based on consensus within the working group. A stakeholder review was organized after the updated draft was finalized. The final version was approved by the working group, the Alpha executive committee and the ESHRE Executive Committee. This updated consensus paper provides 20 recommendations focused on the timeline of preimplantation developmental events and morphological criteria for oocyte, zygote, and embryo assessment. Based on duration of embryo culture, recommendations are given on the frequency and timing of assessments to ensure consistency and effectiveness. Several criteria relevant to oocyte and embryo morphology have not been well studied, leading to either a recommendation against their use for grading or for their use in ranking rather than grading. Future updates may require further revision of these recommendations. This document provides embryologists with advice on best practices when assessing oocyte and embryo quality based on the most recent evidence.
The Association for the Study of Reproductive Biology (ASEBIR) Interest Group in Embryology (in Spanish 'Grupo de Interés de Embriología') reviewed key morphokinetic parameters to assess the contribution of time-lapse technology (TLT) to the ASEBIR grading system. Embryo grading based on morphological characteristics is the most widely used method in human assisted reproduction laboratories. The introduction and implementation of TLT has provided a large amount of information that can be used as a complementary tool for morphological embryo evaluation and selection. As part of IVF treatments, embryologists grade embryos to decide which embryos to transfer or freeze. At the present, the embryo grading system developed by ASEBIR does not consider dynamic events observed through TLT. Laboratories that are using TLT consider those parameters as complementary data for embryo selection. The aim of this review was to evaluate review time-specific morphological changes during embryo development that are not included in the ASEBIR scoring system, and to consider them as candidates to add to the scoring system.
ABSTRACTObjectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of different ultrasound signs for diagnosing adnexal torsion, using surgery as the reference standard.MethodsThis was a systematic review and meta‐analysis of studies published between January 1990 and November 2021 evaluating ovarian edema, adnexal mass, ovarian Doppler flow findings, the whirlpool sign and pelvic fluid as ultrasound signs (index tests) for detecting adnexal torsion, using surgical findings as the reference standard. The search for studies was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and Web of Science databases. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies‐2 (QUADAS‐2) tool was used to evaluate the quality of the studies. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated separately, and the post‐test probability of adnexal torsion following a positive or negative test was also determined.ResultsThe search identified 1267 citations after excluding duplicates. Eighteen studies were ultimately included in the qualitative and quantitative syntheses. Eight studies (809 patients) analyzed the presence of ovarian edema, eight studies (1044 patients) analyzed the presence of an adnexal mass, 14 studies (1742 patients) analyzed ovarian Doppler flow, six studies (545 patients) analyzed the whirlpool sign and seven studies (981 patients) analyzed the presence of pelvic fluid as ultrasound signs of adnexal torsion. Overall, the quality of most studies was considered to be moderate or good. However, there was a high risk of bias in the patient‐selection and index‐text domains (with the exception of the whirlpool sign) in a significant proportion of studies. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios of each ultrasound sign were 58%, 86%, 4.0 and 0.49 for ovarian edema, 69%, 46%, 1.3 and 0.67 for adnexal mass, 65%, 91%, 7.6 and 0.38 for the whirlpool sign, 53%, 95%, 11.0 and 0.49 for ovarian Doppler findings and 55%, 69%, 1.7 and 0.66 for pelvic fluid. Heterogeneity was high for all analyses.ConclusionsThe presence of an adnexal mass or pelvic fluid have poor diagnostic accuracy as ultrasound signs of adnexal torsion, while the presence of ovarian edema, the whirlpool sign and decreased or absent ovarian Doppler flow have good specificity but moderate sensitivity for detecting adnexal torsion. © 2022 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
OBJECTIVE:To compare the diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detecting cervical infiltration by endometrial carcinoma using meta-analysis assessment.METHODS:An extensive search of papers comparing TVS and MRI for assessing cervical infiltration in endometrial cancer in the same set of patients was performed in Medline (Pubmed), Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database. Quality was assessed using QUADAS-2 tool (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2). Quantitative meta-analysis was performed.RESULTS:Our extended search identified 12 articles that used both techniques in the same set of patients and were included in the meta-analysis. The risk of bias for most studies was high for patient selection and index tests in QUADAS-2. Overall, the pooled estimated sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing cervical infiltration in women with endometrial cancer were identical for both techniques [69 % (95 % CI, 51 %-82 %) and 93 % (95 % CI, 90 %-95 %) for TVS, and 69 % (95 % CI, 57 %-79 %) and 91 % (95 % CI, 90 %-95 %) for MRI, respectively]. No statistical differences were found when comparing both methods. Heterogeneity was high for sensitivity and moderate for specificity when analyzing TVS and moderate for both sensitivity and specificity in the case of MRI.CONCLUSION:TVS and MRI showed very similar diagnostic performance for diagnosing cervical involvement in women with endometrial cancer.
