A recently published randomized controlled trial showed preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) as part of an IVF programme to reduce ongoing pregnancy rates by 1/3 in comparison to the control group without PGS: rate ratio (RR) 0.69 (0.51-0.93), P = 0.01. A masked interim analysis already showed significant differences between treatment arms: RR 0.58 (0.35-0.94), P = 0.02. Despite this finding, the trial's Data Monitoring Committee decided not to stop, but to continue the trial. This paper argues why this decision was sound, since it was based on (i) explicit statistical criteria and (ii) the trade-off between risks and benefits for current and future IVF patients. The trial's findings confront the medical community once again with the general problem of new technologies being implemented without randomized evidence of effectiveness.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ankum et al. (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: