N Engl J Med, 2021
Abstract
Companies have recently begun to sell a new service to patients considering in vitro fertilization: embryo selection based on polygenic scores (ESPS). These scores represent individualized predictions of health and other outcomes derived from genomewide association studies in adults to partially predict these outcomes. This article includes a discussion of many factors that lower the predictive power of polygenic scores in the context of embryo selection and quantifies these effects for a variety of clinical and nonclinical traits. Also discussed are potential unintended consequences of ESPS (including selecting for adverse traits, altering population demographics, exacerbating inequalities in society, and devaluing certain traits). Recommendations for the responsible communication about ESPS by practitioners are provided, and a call for a society-wide conversation about this technology is made. (Funded by the National Institute on Aging and others.).
Topics
PMID 34192436 34192436 DOI 10.1056/NEJMsr2105065 10.1056/NEJMsr2105065 Turley et al. 2021, Turley 2021
Related articles
assisted-reproduction/add-ons-and-adjuncts/preimplantation-genetic-testing genetics-and-immunology/reproductive-genetics/chromosomal-abnormalities
In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening
Mastenbroek S et al., 2007 · N Engl J Med
Pregnancy rates in women of advanced maternal age undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) are disappointingly low. It has been suggested that the use of preimplantation genetic screening of cleavage-stage embryos for aneuploidies may improve the effectiveness of IVF in these women. We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial comparing three cycles of IVF with and without preimplantation genetic screening in women 35 through 41 years of age. The primary outcome measure was ongoing pregnancy at 12 weeks of gestation. The secondary outcome measures were biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, and live birth. Four hundred eight women (206 assigned to preimplantation genetic screening and 202 assigned to the control group) underwent 836 cycles of IVF (434 cycles with and 402 cycles without preimplantation genetic screening). The ongoing-pregnancy rate was significantly lower in the women assigned to preimplantation genetic screening (52 of 206 women [25%]) than in those not assigned to preimplantation genetic screening (74 of 202 women [37%]; rate ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51 to 0.93). The women assigned to preimplantation genetic screening also had a significantly lower live-birth rate (49 of 206 women [24%] vs. 71 of 202 women [35%]; rate ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.92). Preimplantation genetic screening did not increase but instead significantly reduced the rates of ongoing pregnancies and live births after IVF in women of advanced maternal age. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN76355836 [controlled-trials.com].).
restorative-reproductive-medicine/restorative-care-and-assisted-reproduction/outcome-comparisons infertility/evaluation/unexplained-infertilityresearch-methods/evidence-synthesis/systematic-reviews
The effectiveness and safety of restorative reproductive medicine (RRM) compared to assisted reproductive technology or medically unassisted conception: a systematic review
Ganci D et al., 2026 · Fertility and Sterility
Restorative Reproductive Medicine (RRM) aims to restore fertility by diagnosing and treating the underlying causes of infertility. RRM is frequently promoted as an alternative to assisted reproductive technology (ART), despite uncertainty regarding its comparative effectiveness and safety. Where delayed childbearing and infertility are becoming more common, reliance on optimization of natural physiology alone may delay effective treatment and compromise reproductive outcomes. A systematic review of the current evidence comparing RRM to either ART or unassisted conception is, therefore, essential to inform clinical practice, guideline development, and shared decision-making for patients experiencing infertility. To assess the effectiveness and safety of RRM approaches, evaluated as a whole, rather than as individual components, compared with ART and medically unassisted conception in couples experiencing infertility. A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and the Journal of Restorative Reproductive Medicine from inception to 28 November 2025. We included randomized control trials (RCTs) or nonrandomized comparative studies evaluating reproductive and safety outcomes of RRM as a unified treatment, compared with either ART or expectant management (attempted medically unassisted conception). Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. We retrieved 724 records, of which 16 studies underwent full-text review. No RCTs or comparative observational studies were identified. All 16 full-text studies were excluded for an ineligible study design (no control group); most were cohort studies in which all participants underwent RRM. Ten studies reported reproductive outcomes; nine of these made claims regarding the benefits or effectiveness of RRM. None of these claims were supported by the study designs used, as the lack of a comparison group precludes reliable estimation of treatment effects. Consequently, these studies cannot provide valid estimates of RRM success rates, nor permit any meaningful inference about its effectiveness relative to unassisted conception or ART. Large-scale RCTs or prospective cohort studies reporting effectiveness and safety outcomes are required to inform evidence-based fertility guidelines. There are no comparative studies to support reliable estimates of the safety and effectiveness of RRM compared with ART or medically unassisted conception for couples experiencing infertility.
endometriosis/surgical-treatment/fertility-sparing-technique ethics-and-policy/reproductive-ethics/embryo-statusrestorative-reproductive-medicine/restorative-care-and-assisted-reproduction/outcome-comparisons
Endometriosis Surgery: Debates About Restorative Reproductive Medicine
Humphries LA, 2026 · Obstetrics and gynecology
For many patients with endometriosis, laparoscopic surgery is the most effective treatment to alleviate severe chronic pelvic pain and improve quality of life. Because endometriosis is common among individuals with infertility, surgery is often considered alongside fertility evaluation and treatment to manage symptoms, identify disease pathology, and restore pelvic anatomy. In patients who desire pregnancy, the decision of whether and when to pursue surgery should be guided by clear medical indications and shared decision making between the patient and their obstetrician-gynecologist. In recent months, however, religious and political groups have sought to reframe this medical decision as an ideologic and moral one, advocating for endometriosis surgery in nearly all patients with infertility and claiming that this can eliminate the need for assisted reproductive technologies. This framework, known as restorative reproductive medicine (RRM), aligns with efforts to promote the "personhood" of fertilized eggs, restrict access to in in vitro fertilization (IVF), and advance endometriosis surgery and lifestyle modifications as "root-cause treatment leading to natural fertility." Recent editorials and issue briefs in the obstetrics and gynecology literature have discussed the serious ethical, medical, and policy implications of RRM, yet there remains an urgent need to address specifically the unfounded claims about endometriosis surgery and its purported advantages over assisted reproductive technology. This article examines the social context of this controversy and reviews the current evidence regarding the indications, benefits, and limitations of endometriosis surgery in the management of infertility. In contrast to RRM's assertions, no evidence supports the adoption of endometriosis surgery as a replacement for IVF or as a primary treatment for infertility. Rather, the role of surgery in fertility care is highly nuanced and depends on each patient's clinical presentation, reproductive goals, and personal priorities.
reproductive-endocrinology/ovarian-hormones/estrogen menstrual-cycle/cycle-physiology/hormonal-regulationresearch-methods/evidence-synthesis/systematic-reviews
Open Access
The influence of the menstrual cycle on muscle injuries - a systematic review and meta-analysis
Guthardt Y et al., 2026 · Sci Rep
This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the relationship between menstrual cycle phases and the incidence of muscle injuries in female team sport athletes, following PRISMA 2020 and PERSiST guidelines. A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus from inception to mid-January 2024. Studies were included if they examined female team sport athletes of reproductive age with regular menstrual cycles and compared the occurrence of muscle injuries across at least two menstrual phases. Studies involving hormonal contraceptive use, medications affecting the menstrual cycle or musculoskeletal system, or menstrual dysfunction were excluded. Three studies met the inclusion criteria, involving 318 participants. Meta-analysis yielded a pooled Risk Ratio of 1.18 (95% CI: 0.75 to 1.86, p = 0.46) for injury risk between the luteal and follicular phases, suggesting no statistically significant association. However, the certainty of the cumulative evidence was rated as very low due to methodological limitations, including inconsistent phase classifications and reliance on imprecise methods for identifying menstrual phases. Consequently, no practical or clinical recommendations can be made at this time. Future research employing standardised, physiologically accurate methods for classifying and detecting menstrual cycle phases is necessary to better understand the potential links between hormonal fluctuations and injury risk. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41598-026-36763-0.