2005; 111:193.113 113. Kuliev A, Zlatopolsky Z, Kirillova I, et al. Meiosis errors in over 20,000 oocytes studied in the practice of preimplantation aneuploidy testing. Reprod BioMed Online 2011; 22:2.
114 114. Munne S. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis of numerical and structural chromosome abnormalities. Reprod Biomed Online 2002; 4:183.
115 115. Gianaroli L, Magli MC, Ferraretti AP. The in vivo and in vitro efficiency and efficacy of PGD for aneuploidy. Mol Cell Endocrinol 2001; 183:S13.
116 116. Munné S, Chen S, Colls P, et al. Maternal age, morphology, development and chromosome abnormalities in over 6000 cleavage stage embryos. Reprod BioMed Online 2007; 14:628.
117 117. Colls P, Escudero T, Cekleniak N, Sadowy S, Cohen J, Munne S. Increased efficiency of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy by testing 12 chromosomes. Reprod Biomed Online 2009; 19:532.
118 118. Uher P, Baborova P, Kralickova M, et al. Non‐informative results and monosomies in PGD: the importance of a third round of re‐hybridization. Reprod Biomed Online 2009; 18:530.
119 119. Fragouli E, Alfarawati S, Spath K, The origin and impact of embryonic aneuploidy. Hum Genet 2013; 132:1001.
120 120. Munné S, Sandalinas M, Escudero T, et al. Improved implantation after preimplantation genetic diagnosis of aneuploidy. Reprod BioMed Online 2003; 7:91.
121 121. Munné S, Fisher J, Warner A, et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis significantly reduces pregnancy loss in infertile couples: a multi‐center study. Fertil Steril 2006; 85:326.
122 122. Staessen C, Platteau P, van Assche E, et al. Comparison of blastocyst transfer with or without preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy in couples with advanced maternal age: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2004; 19:2849.
123 123. Platteau P, Staessen C, Michiels A, et al. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy in patients with unexplained recurrent miscarriages. Fertil Steril 2005; 83:393.
124 124. Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van Echten‐Arends J, et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N Engl J Med 2007; 357:9.
125 125. Cohen J, Wells D, Munné S. Removal of two cells from cleavage stage embryos is likely to reduce the efficacy of chromosomal tests employed to enhance implantation rates. Fertil Steril 2007; 87:496.
126 126. Munné S, Cohen J, Simpson JL. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N Engl J Med 2007; 357:1769.
127 127. Cohen J, Grifo J. Multicentre trial of preimplantation genetic screening reported in the New England Journal of Medicine: an in‐depth look at the findings. Reprod Biomed Online 2008; 15:365.
128 128. Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology and Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Preimplantation genetic testing: a Practice Committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2007; 88:1497.
129 129. Lathi RB, Westphal LM, Milki AA. Aneuploidy in the miscarriages of infertile women and the potential benefit of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Fertil Steril 2008; 89:353.
130 130. Gianaroli L, Magli MC, Ferraretti A. The beneficial effects of PGD for aneuploidy support extensive clinical application. Reprod BioMed Online 2004; 10:633.
131 131. Verlinsky Y, Tur‐Kaspa I, Cieslak J, et al. Preimplantation testing for chromosomal disorders improves reproductive outcome of poor‐prognosis IVF patients. Reprod BioMed Online 2005; 11:219.
132 132. Magli MC, Jones GM, Gras L, et al. Chromosome mosaicism in day 3 aneuploid embryos that develop to morphologically normal blastocysts in vitro. Hum Reprod 2000; 15:1781.
133 133. Sandalinas M, Sadowy S, Alikani M, et al. Developmental ability of chromosomally abnormal human embryos to develop to the blastocyst stage. Hum Reprod 2001; 16:1954.
134 134. Ankum WM, Reitsma JB, Offringa M. IVF with preimplantation genetic screening, a promising new treatment with unexpectedly negative health outcomes: the Hippocratic role of Data Monitoring Committees. Hum Reprod 2008; 23:1.
135 135. Twisk M, Mastenbroek S, Hoek A. No beneficial effect of preimplantation genetic screening in women of advanced maternal age with a high risk for embryonic aneuploidy. Hum Reprod 2008; 23:2813.
136 136. Yakin K, Urman B. What next for preimplantation genetic screening? A clinician's perspective. Hum Reprod 2008; 23:1686.
137 137. Gleicher N, Kushnir V, Barad D. Preimplantation genetic screening: still in search of a clinical application: a systematic review. Reprod Biol Endocrin 2014; 12:22.
138 138. Yang Z, Liu J, Collinz GS, et al. Selection of single blastocysts for fresh transfer via standard morphology assessment alone and with array CGH for good prognosis IVF patients: results from a randomized pilot study. Mol Cytogenet 2012; 5:24.
139 139. Scott RT, Tao X, Ferry KM, Treff NR. A prospective randomized controlled trial demonstrating significantly increased clinical pregnancy rates following 24 chromosome aneuploidy screening: biopsy and analysis on day 5 with fresh transfer. Fertil Steril 2010; 94(Suppl):S2.
140 140. Forman EJ, Tao X, Ferry KM, et al. Single embryo transfer with comprehensive chromosome screening results in improved ongoing pregnancy rates and decreased miscarriage rates. Hum Reprod 2012; 27:1217.
141 141. Rubio C, Bellver J, Rodrigo L, et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidies in advanced maternal age: a randomized, controlled study. Fertil Steril 2017; 107:1122.
142 142. Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. SART national summary report: Final CSR for 2016. https://www.sartcorsonline.com/rpt SR_PublicMultYear.aspx? (accessed May 6, 2019).
143 143. Munné S, Kaplan B, Frattarelli JL, et al.; STAR Study Group. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy versus morphology as selection criteria for single frozen‐thawed embryo transfer in good‐prognosis patients: a multicenter randomized clinical trial. Fertil Steril 2019; 112(6):1071.
144 144. Schoolcraft WB, Fragouli E, Stevens J, et al. Clinical application of comprehensive chromosomal screening at the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril 2010; 94:1700.
145 145. Fragouli E, Alfarawati S, Daphnis DD, et al. Cytogenetic analysis of human blastocyst with the use of FISH, CGH, and a CGH: scientific data and technical evaluation. Hum Reprod 2011; 26:480.
146 146. Schoolcraft WB, Treff NR, Stevens JM, et al. Live birth outcome with tro‐phectoderm biopsy, blastocyst vitrification, and single‐nucleotide polymorphism microarray‐based comprehensive chromosome screening in infertile patients. Fertil Steril 2011; 96:638.
147 147. Geraedts J, Montag M, Magli C, et al. Polar body array CGH for prediction of the status of the corresponding oocyte. Part I: clinical results. Hum Reprod 2011; 26:3172.
148 148. Magli C, Montag M, Koster M, et al. Polar body array CGH for prediction of the status of the corresponding oocyte. Part II: technical aspects. Hum Reprod 2011; 26(11):3181.
149 149. Gabriel AS, Thornhill AR, Ottolini CS, et al. Array comparative genomic hybridization on first polar bodies suggests that non‐disjunction is not the predominant mechanism leading to aneuploidy in humans. J Med Genet 2011; 48:433.
150 150. Brezina PR, Benner A, Rechitsky S, et al. Single‐gene testing combined with single nucleotide polymorphism
