Yovich, JL, Craft, IL. Founding pioneers of IVF: Independent innovative researchers generating livebirths within 4 years of the first birth. Reprod Biol. 2018;18:317–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

O’Neill, CL, Chow, S, Rosenwaks, Z, Palermo, GD. Development of ICSI. Reproduction. 2018;156:F51–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Yovich, JL, Conceicao, JL, Marjanovich, N, et al. An ICSI rate of 90% minimizes complete failed fertilization and provides satisfactory implantation rates without elevating fetal abnormalities. Reprod Biol. 2018;18:301–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Simerly, CR, Takahashi, D, Jacoby, E, et al. Fertilization and cleavage axis differ in primates conceived by conventional (IVF) versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Sci Rep. 2019;9:15282. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-51815-4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Lamarta, C, Ortega, C, Villa, S, Pommer, R, Schwarze, JE. Are children born from singleton pregnancies conceived by ICSI at increased risk for congenital malformations when compared to children conceived naturally? A systematic review and meta-analysis. JBRA Assisted Reprod. 2017;21(3):251–9.Google Scholar

ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology, ALPHA. The Vienna consensus: report of an expert meeting on the development of art laboratory performance indicators. Hum Reprod Open. 2017;2.Google Scholar

Ding, D, Wang, Q, Li, X, et al. Effects of different polyvinylpyrrolidone concentrations on intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Zygote. 2020;14:1–6.Google Scholar

Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) for non-male factor infertility: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(6):1395–9.Google Scholar

Sustar, K, Rozen, G, Agresta, F, et al. Use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in normospermic men may result in lower clinical pregnancy and live birth rates. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019;59:706–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Focus on Reproduction. Best of ESHRE & ASRM. ICSI: Fertilisation for all or only for male factor indications? Published April 8, 2019. www.focusonreproduction.eu/article/ESHRE-Meetings-BOEA-2019-ICSI.Google Scholar

Meseguer, M, Herrero, J, Tejera, A, Hilligsoe, KM, Ramsing, NB, Remohi, J. The use of morphokinetics as a predictor of embryo implantation. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:2658–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Dal Canto, M, Coticchio, G, Mignini Renzini, M, et al. Cleavage kinetics analysis of human embryos predicts development to blastocyst and implantation. Reprod Biomed. 2012;25:474–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Chan, Y, Zhu, B, Jiang, H, Zhang, J, Luo, Y, Tang, W. Influence of TP53 codon 72 polymorphism alone or in combination with HDM2 SNP309 on human infertility and IVF outcome. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0167147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ergin, EG, Caliskan, E, Yalcinkaya, E, et al. Frequency of embryo multinucleation detected by time-lapse system and its impact on pregnancy outcome. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:1029–33, e1021.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Rocafort, E, Enciso, M, Leza, A, Sarasa, J, Aizpurua, J. Euploid embryos selected by an automated time-lapse system have superior SET outcomes than selected solely by conventional morphology assessment. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35:1573–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Goodman, LR, Goldberg, J, Falcone, T, Austin, C, Desai, N. Does the addition of time-lapse morphokinetics in the selection of embryos for transfer improve pregnancy rates? A randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:275–85, e210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Pribenszky, C, Nilselid, AM, Montag, M. Time-lapse culture with morphokinetic embryo selection improves pregnancy and live birth chances and reduces early pregnancy loss: a meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed. 2017;35:511–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Armstrong, S, Bhide, P, Jordan, V, Pacey, A, Marjoribanks, J, Farquhar, C. Time-lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction. Cochrne Database Syst Rev. 2019;(5). Art. No.: CD011320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reignier, A, Lammers, J, Barriere, P, Freour, T. Can time-lapse parameters predict embryo ploidy? A systematic review. Reprod Biomed. Online. 2018;36(4):380–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.01.001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Chavez, SL, Loewke, KE, Han, J, et al. Dynamic blastomere behaviour reflects human embryo ploidy by the four-cell stage. Nat Commun. 2012;3:1251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Yang, Z, Zhang, J, Salem, SA, et al. Selection of competent blastocysts for transfer by combining time-lapse monitoring and array CGH testing for patients undergoing preimplantation genetic screening: a prospective study with sibling oocytes. BMC Med Genom. 2014;7:38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Rocafort, E, Enciso, M, Leza, A, Sarasa, J, Aizpurua, J. Euploid embryos selected by an automated time-lapse system have superior SET outcomes than selected solely by conventional morphology assessment. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35:1573–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Pribenszky, C, Nilselid, AM, Montag, M. Time-lapse culture with morphokinetic embryo selection improves pregnancy and live birth chances and reduces early pregnancy loss: a meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2017 Nov;35(5):511–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Storr, A, Venetis, C, Cooke, S, Kilani, S, Ledger, W. Time-lapse algorithms and morphological selection of day-5 embryos for transfer: a preclinical validation study. Fertil Steril. 2018 Feb;109(2):276–83.e3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Tran, D, Cooke, S, Illingworth, PJ, Gardner, DK. Deep learning as a predictive tool for fetal heart pregnancy following time-lapse incubation and blastocyst transfer. Hum Reprod. 2019 June 4;34(6):1011–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Armstrong, S, Bhide, P, Jordan, V, Pacey, A, Marjoribanks, J, Farquhar, C. Time-lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 May 29;5:CD011320.Google ScholarPubMed

Mastenbroek, S, Twisk, M, van Echten-Arends, J, et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. New Engl J Med. 2007;357:9–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Armstrong, S, Bhide, P, Jordan, V, Pacey, A, Marjoribanks, J, Farquhar, C. Time-lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019; Issue 5. Art. No.: CD011320. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011320.pub4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pribenszky, C, Nilselid, A-M, Montag, M Time-lapse culture with morphokinetic embryo selection improves pregnancy and live birth chances and reduces early pregnancy loss: a meta-analysis. Reprod BioMed. Online 2017;35:511–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Wang, R, Pan, W, Jin, L, et al. Artificial intelligence in reproductive medicine. Reproduction. 2019;158(4):R139–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Khosravi, P, Kazemi, E, Zhan, Q, et al. Deep learning enables robust assessment and selection of human blastocysts after in vitro fertilization. NPJ Dig Med. 2019;2(21).Google ScholarPubMed

VerMilyea, M, Hall, JMM, Diakiw, SM, et al. Development of an artificial intelligence-based assessment model for prediction of embryo viability using static images captured by optical light microscopy during IVF. Hum Reprod. 2020;35(4):770–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Chavez-Badiola, A, Flores-Saiffe-Farıas, A, Mendizabal-Ruiz, G, Drakeley, AJ, Cohen, J. Embryo Ranking Intelligent Classification Algorithm (ERICA), an artificial intelligence clinical assistant with embryo ploidy and implantation predicting capabilities. Reprod BioMed. Online 2020;41(4):585–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tran, D, Cooke, S, Illingworth, P, Gardner, D. Deep learning as a predictive tool for fetal heart pregnancy following time-lapse incubation and blastocyst transfer. Hum Reprod. 2019;34(6):1011–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Armstrong, S, Bhide, P, Jordan, V, Pacey, A, Marjoribanks, J, Farquhar, C. Time‐lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019(5). 10.1002/14651858.CD011320.pub4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Miyagi, Y, Habara, T, Hirata, R, Hayashi, N. Feasibility of artificial intelligence for predicting live birth without aneuploidy from a blastocyst image. Reprod Med Biol. 2019;18(2):204–11.Google ScholarPubMed

HFEA. Treatment add-ons 2019. Available from: www.hfea.gov.uk/treatments/explore-all-treatments/treatment-add-ons/Google Scholar

Glujovsky, D, Farquhar, C, Quinteiro Retamar, AM, Alvarez Sedo, CR, Blake, D. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016; Issue 6. Art.No.: CD002118. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002118.pub5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ciray, HN, Aksoy, T, Goktas, C, Ozturk, B, Bahecci, M. Time lapse evaluation of human embryo development in single versus sequential culture media – a sibling oocyte study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29:891–900.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Mascarenhas, M, Fox, SJ, Thompson, K, Balen, AH. Cumulative live birth rates and perinatal outcomes with the use of time lapse imaging incubators for embryo culture: a retrospective cohort study of 1882 ART cycles. BJOG. 2018; https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.15161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Swain, JE, Carrell, D, Cobo, A, Messeuger, M, Rubio, C, Smith, GD. Optimising the culture environment and embryo manipulation to help maintain embryo developmental potential. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:571–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Van, HK, Segal, T, Epstein, D, Liu, J, Rossi, B, Goldfarb, J. Predicting blastulation rate with day 2 and 3 morphology: evaluation of cost limited embryo assessment. Fertil Steril. 2018;109(3) sup e54–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mascarenhas, M, Fox, SJ, Thompson, K, Balen, AH. Cumulative live birth rates and perinatal outcomes with the use of time-lapse imaging incubators for embryo culture: a retrospective cohort study of 1882 ART cycles. BJOG 2019;126(2):280–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

ESHRE Working Group on Time-Lapse Technology: Apter, S, Ebner, T, Freour, T, et al. Good practice recommendations for the use of time-lapse technology. Hum Reprod Open. 2020;2020: Issue 2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Singh, S, Hobeika, E, Knochenhauer, ES, Traub, ML. Pregnancy rates after pre-implantation genetic screening for aneuploidy are only superior when trophectoderm biopsy is performed on hatching embryos. JARG. 2019;36(4):621–8.Google ScholarPubMed

Swain, J. Controversies in ART: considerations and risks for uninterrupted embryo culture. RMBO. 2019:39(1):19–26.Google ScholarPubMed

Sfontouris, IA, Martins, WP, Nastri, CO, et al. Blastocyst culture using single versus sequential media in clinical IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JARG. 2016;33(10):1261–72.Google ScholarPubMed

Glujovsky, D, Farquhar, C, Quinteiro Retamar, AM, Alvarez Sedo, CR, Blake, D. Cleavage-stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016; Issue 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

HFEA. Fertility treatment in 2014–2016, trends and figures. Human Fertility Embryology Authority: UK, 2018.Google Scholar

Jarvis, GE. Early embryo mortality in natural human reproduction: What the data say. F1000Res. 2017;5:2765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Delhanty, JDA. Mechanisms of aneuploidy induction in human oogenesis and early embryogenesis. Cytogenet Genome Res. 2005;111(3–4):237–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Marconi, N, Raja, EA, Bhattacharya, S, Maheshwari, A. Perinatal outcomes in singleton live births after fresh blastocyst-stage embryo transfer: A retrospective analysis of 67 147 IVF/ICSI cycles. Hum Reprod. 2019;34(9):1716–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Fertility treatment in 2014: Trends and figures. HFEA, 2016; available from: www.hfea.gov.uk/10243.html.Google Scholar

Kasraie, J. (2019) Cleavage stage or blastocyst transfer: which is better? In: Kovacs, G, Salamonsen, L (eds.) How to Prepare the Endometrium to Maximize Implantation Rates and IVF Success. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 91–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Glujovsky, D, Farquhar, C, Quinteiro Retamar, AM, Alvarez Sedo, CR, Blake, D. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016, Issue 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Maheshwari, A, Hamilton, M, Bhattacharya, S. Should we be promoting embryo transfer at blastocyst stage? Reprod BioMed. Online, 2016;32(2):142–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed