| Cochrane / Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Cornelisse 2020; Cheng 2022; Simopoulou 2021; others) | Multiple high-quality reviews find inconsistent evidence for routine PGT‑A: overall no clear increase in live birth rate (LBR) but potential reduction in miscarriage; some meta‑analyses report benefit in advanced maternal age or improved cumulative LBR in select subgroups; heterogeneity and low–moderate quality of evidence limit conclusions. |
| SART CORS registry analysis (Kucherov 2023) | Analysis of 133,494 autologous IVF cycles reported decreased cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) associated with PGT‑A for individuals ≤40 years, with possible benefit for those >40; subgroup FET analyses showed high CLBR when only cycles with transferable euploid embryos were considered; retrospective design limits causal inference. |
| STAR randomized trial (Munne et al. 2019) | Multicenter RCT comparing PGT‑A vs morphology for frozen single‑embryo transfer found no overall improvement in ongoing pregnancy rates (primary outcome); post‑hoc subgroup showed higher ongoing pregnancy per ET in ages 35–40 but not per intent‑to‑treat; no overall benefit across all participants. |
| Yan et al. (N Engl J Med 2021) and other key RCTs | Large RCTs included in reviews contributed to mixed results: some trials did not show increased LBR with PGT‑A overall, while others contributed to subgroup findings (e.g., advanced maternal age); included in systematic reviews highlighting heterogeneity across studies. |
| Non‑selection and assay comparison studies (Tiegs 2021; Friedenthal 2018; Huang 2019; Capalbo 2015) | Assay and biopsy timing affect performance: targeted NGS PGT‑A shows prognostic value for aneuploid results (Tiegs non‑selection study); NGS may yield better implantation/LBR vs CGH; noninvasive approaches and differences between methods raise concerns about concordance and mosaicism artifacts. |
| RCT/meta‑analyses focused on recurrent pregnancy failure / recurrent loss (Liang 2023; Mumusoglu 2025) | Systematic reviews/meta‑analyses suggest PGT‑A may reduce pregnancy loss and may improve LBR per transfer or per participant in populations with recurrent pregnancy failure or unexplained recurrent loss, but evidence limitations and need for high‑quality RCTs are noted. |
| Retrospective cohort / donor oocyte analyses (Barad 2017; Bhatt 2021) | Some registry and retrospective studies report lower pregnancy/LBR with PGT‑A in donor cycles or mixed findings; others show increased LBR in selected groups (e.g., RPL with FET), illustrating inconsistent real‑world outcomes and potential selection biases. |
| Meta‑analysis findings summarized (Cornelisse 2020 detailed results) | Cochrane review found uncertainty about CLBR and LBR with PGT‑A across techniques; FISH‑era PGT‑A probably reduced live births after first transfer, and evidence quality varied from low to moderate, leading to conclusion that routine PGT‑A is not supported. |
| Subgroup and age‑specific analyses (multiple sources) | Across RCTs, meta‑analyses, and registry data, age appears to modify effect: several analyses report potential benefit in older patients (>35 or >40) for certain outcomes (LBR per ET or reduced miscarriage), but results are inconsistent and not definitive. |