Is pronuclear scoring a really good predictor for ICSI cycles?

References

• Arroyo G, Veiga A, Santalo J, Barri PL. Developmental prognosis for zygotes based on pronuclear pattern: usefulness of pronuclear scoring. J Assist Reprod Genet 2007;24:173–181.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ziebe S, Petersen K, Lindenberg S, Andersen A-G, Gabrielsen A, Nyboe Andersen A. Embryo morphology or cleavage stage: how to select the best embryos for transfer after in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1997;12:1545–1549.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson KV, Ginsburg ES, Hornstein MD, Rein MS, Clarke RN. Multinucleation in normally fertilized embryos is associated with an accelerated ovulation induction response and lower implantation and pregnancy rates in in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer cycles. Fertil Steril 1998;70:60–66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Royen E, Mangelschots K, De Neubourg D, Valkenburg M, Van de Meerssche M, Ryckaert G, Eestermans W, Gerris J. Characterization of a top quality embryo, a step towards single-embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 1999;14:2345–2349.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott L, Alvero R, Leondires M, Miller B. The morphology of human pronuclear embryos is positively related to blastocyst development and implantation. Hum Reprod 2000;15:2394–2403.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montag M, van der Ven H. Evaluation of pronuclear morphology as the only selection criterion for further embryo culture and transfer: results of a prospective multicentre study. Hum Reprod 2001;16:2384–2389.
   Google Scholar
• Wharf E, Dimitraopoulous A, Khalaf Y. Early embryo development is an indicator of implantation potential. Reprod Biomed Online 2004;8:212–218.
   Google Scholar
• Scott L, Finn A, O'Leary T, McLellan S, Hill J. Morphologic parameters of early cleavage- stage embryos that correlate with fetal development and delivery: prospective and applied data for increased pregnancy rates. Hum Reprod 2007;22:230–240.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neuber E, Mahutte NG, Arici A, Sakkas D. Sequential embryo assessment outperforms investigator-driven morphological assessment at selecting a good quality blastocyst. Fertil Steril 2006;85:794–796.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alvarez C, Taronger R, García-Garrido C, González de Merlo G. Zygote score and status 1 or 2 days after cleavage and assisted reproduction outcome. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2008;101:16–20.
   Google Scholar
• Scott LA, Smith S. The successful use of pronuclear embryo transfers the day following oocyte retrieval. Hum Reprod 1998;13:1003–1013.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tesarik J, Greco E. The probability of abnormal preimplantation development can be predicted by a single static observation on pronuclear stage morphology. Hum Reprod 1999;14:1318–1323.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balaban B, Urman B, Isklar A, Alatas C, Aksoy S, Mercan R, Mumcu A, Nunhglu A. The effect of pronuclear morphology on embryo quality parameters and blastocyst transfer outcome. Hum Reprod 2001;16:2357–2361.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James AN, Hennessy S, Reggio B, Wiemer K, Larsen F, Cohen J. The limited importance of pronuclear scoring of human zygotes. Hum Reprod 2006;21:1599–1604.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salumets A, Hyden-Granskog C, Suikkari AM, Tiitien A, Tuuri T. The predictive value of pronuclear morphology of zygotes in the assessment of human embryo quality. Hum Reprod 2001;16:2177–2181.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Homburg R, Insler V. Ovulation induction in perspective. Hum Reprod Update 2002;8:449–462.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nagy ZP, Liu J, Joris H, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem A. Time-course of oocyte activation, pronucleus formation and cleavage in human oocytes fertilized by intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod 1994;9:1743–1748.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baczkowksi T, Kurzawa R, Glabowksi W. Methods of embryo scoring in in vitro fertilization. Reprod Biol 2004;4:5–22.
   Google Scholar
• Jaroudi K, Al-Hassan S, Sieck U, Al-Sufyan H, Al-Kabra M, Coskun S. Zygote transfer on day 1 versus cleavage state embryo transfer on day 3: a prospective randomized trial. Hum Reprod 2004;19:645–648.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Scott L. Embryological strategies for overcoming recurrent assisted reproductive technology treatment failure. Hum Fertil (Camb) 2002;5:206–214.
   Google Scholar
• Wittemer C, Bettahar-Lebugle K, Ohl J, Rongieres C, Nisand I, Gerlinger P. Zygote evaluation: an efficient tool for embryo selection. Hum Reprod 2000;15:2591–2597.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tesarik J, Kopecny V. Development of human male pronucleus; ultrastructure and timing. Gamete Res 1989;24:135–149.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ebner T, Moser M, Sommergruber M, Tews G. Selection based on morphological assessment of oocytes and embryos at different stages of preimplantation development: a review. Hum Reprod 2003;9:251–262.
   Google Scholar