A trial, led by Dr Priya Bhide from the Women’s Health Research Unit at Queen Mary University of London has shown that there is no difference in live birth rates between time-lapse imaging and other standard approaches used in IVF.
The results of this multicentered trial were published in the Lancet.
PET Director Sarah Norcross was quoted commenting on this study in the Independent.
She said: 'For more than a decade, we have seen claims that using time-lapse imaging for embryo selection can improve the chance of a live birth by 50% or more.
'Finally, we have a thoroughgoing, double-blind, randomised controlled trial that can detect meaningful differences in live births, when time-lapse imaging is used for embryo culture and selection.
'Importantly this trial has found that time-lapse seems to make no difference.
'The lesson here is that patients should be sceptical, whenever any claim is made that any technology or add-on can improve chances of IVF success.
'Certainly, clinics should not be charging patients extra for fertility treatment if time-lapse imaging is used.'
PET has worked with Dr Manuela Perrotta also from Queen Mary University of London on a project relating to the use of fertility treatment add-ons of which time-lapse imaging is just one. The project was entitled 'Building Bridges Between Fertility Patients, Clinics and Regulators: A Collaborative Approach'. PET facilitated a series of stakeholder workshops for this project, and produced an event to showcase the project findings (you can listen to that discussion on our podcast). The project has resulted in an interactive toolkit and several research digests, addressing key issues related to the proliferation of fertility treatment add-ons. All of these documents can be downloaded here.