Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
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?
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mastenbroek et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: