RESUMEN

RESEARCH QUESTION: What areas of manual IVF cryostorage operations are common to the safe operation of IVF cryostorage facilities and require effort from embryologists? DESIGN: Observational time and motion data were collected by two observers equipped with the digital cameras over 2 weeks at four well-characterized US IVF centres (sites α, ß, γ and δ) from 12 participants performing cryostorage tasks. To understand the work processes of the different sites and assist in the data analysis, informal interviews were conducted with the study participants and laboratory directors. Data were analysed to identify work processes that might be eliminated or diminished by automation and software improvements. RESULTS: On average, it took 3.4 data record queries per retrieval from cryostorage to identify a cane, while the canister was lifted an average of 1.5 times per retrieval, with a mean 11.8 ± 9.2 s per lift. Of the total time spent working with cryostorage equipment, 47.25% was of a fatiguing nature. Sites α, ß and γ utilized one person to fill the liquid nitrogen storage Dewars, while site δ had two technicians working in tandem to move and fill the Dewars, with different frequencies and determination factors for refills and efficiencies. CONCLUSIONS: This time and motion study demonstrated significant time investment, task redundancy and fatiguing working conditions among embryologists using manual cryostorage processes. There was a disparity of processes and space capacity across different laboratories. Some of these issues may be addressed by the integration of automation and technology solutions.

RESUMEN

AIMS: This study aims to comprehensively examine the employment and practices of embryologists in Japan's assisted reproductive technology (ART) laboratories, focusing on the impact of various factors such as ART cycle numbers, add-ons, and regional differences. Additionally, it seeks to assess the extent to which Japanese ART facilities meet international minimum standards set by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM). METHODS: A survey was conducted from December 2021 to February 2022 among 621 ART facilities in Japan. The study categorized facilities into five ART cycle groups and compared the number of embryologists across these groups. It also examined the correlation between the number of embryologists, ART cycles, add-ons, and regional differences. Data were analyzed using linear regression and multiple linear regression analyses. RESULTS: The study's findings revealed a significant correlation between the total number of embryologists at each facility and the ART cycles. Notably, there were significant differences in the number of embryologists across all ART cycle categories. Of the 435 facilities, only 44.6% met the ASRM minimum embryologist staffing requirement. The regression analysis further highlighted the significance of ART cycles and preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies as factors. Moreover, the number of embryologists stationed at urban facilities was significantly higher than at nonurban facilities, indicating a potential regional disparity. CONCLUSION: In Japan, it was first found that more than 50% of ART facilities do not have sufficient embryologists in place relative to the number of ART cycles. Furthermore, the add-ons and regional differences affect the placement of embryologists.

RESUMEN

In healthcare, leadership plays a crucial role in determining the quality of care and overall clinical performance. However, the pivotal role of leadership in the effective functioning and success of IVF laboratories is often overlooked. This commentary seeks to address this gap. It is necessary to explore the multifaceted nature of an IVF laboratory director's role, as well as the need for a new approach to IVF laboratory management that strongly emphasizes the cultivation of leadership skills in tandem with technical expertise. By enhancing leadership skills, IVF laboratories can improve their efficiency, team morale and patient outcomes.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: This study assessed the visibility of embryologists on fertility clinic websites among Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) member clinics. METHODS: During a 1-month interval (March 2022), all Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) member fertility clinic websites were evaluated. The professional representation of the primary care team was examined including specialties, the presence of headshots, and biographies. RESULTS: A total of 446 fertility clinic websites were scanned in the search. The embryology team has the least common professional identification by their names (53.58%) compared to gynecology clinicians (96.21%, p < 0.001) and nurses (55.58%, p < 0.001). This trend also applies to other types of professional identifiers, such as headshots and biographies. Professional headshots of embryologists (50.34%) were less prominent than those of gynecology clinicians (93.51%, p < 0.001). A similar trend was observed in the biographies of the embryology team (47.20%) compared to gynecology clinicians (95.08%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The present study revealed that embryologists have low professional visibility on fertility clinic websites. Fertility clinics may prioritize enhancing the online visibility of their embryology laboratory team. This approach could potentially enhance the recognition of their team, foster transparency, and provide accessible information about the skills and expertise of healthcare professionals involved in the treatment process.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

STUDY QUESTION: How is the acquisition and testing of theoretical and practical knowledge in Clinical Embryology and the licensing of ART laboratory personnel carried out in European countries? SUMMARY ANSWER: Twelve out of 31 European countries have established some kind of verification of laboratory competency and skills in ART: in 7 countries, this was related to licensing, but where organized education for Clinical Embryologists existed, there were vast differences in the way these processes were undertaken. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In 2015, a report by the ESHRE Embryology Certification Committee concluded that regardless of the large number of people working in IVF laboratories, Clinical Embryology was only recognized as an official profession in 3 out of 27 European national health systems. In most countries, Clinical Embryologists needed to be officially registered under an alternative profession and there were limited opportunities for organized education in this specialist field. Five years after this report, the ESHRE Working Group on Embryologist Training Analysis conducted a survey to collect detailed information about how Clinical Embryologists from different European countries are acquiring their theoretical knowledge and practical skills in ART, and how their level of education and competence in Clinical Embryology is verified. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: Two questionnaires about the possibilities for acquiring the education and training needed to work in ART and verification of this knowledge were prepared by the ESHRE Working Group on Embryologist Training Analysis. The first was sent in 2020 to a panel of invited lead European Embryologists who attended an Expert Meeting held in Rome, Italy. In order to have a more comprehensive and updated picture, in 2021 the same survey was also sent to the ESHRE Committee of National Representatives (CNRs). At the end of 2021, the second survey with specific questions, more focused on Clinical Embryologists' training and licencing, was sent to the CNRs who reported on verification of education in Clinical Embryology. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: The first survey consisted of 17 questions. It was initially submitted to 14 lead Embryologists and then resubmitted to the 34 ESHRE CNRs. Representatives from 31 countries responded. A second survey with 23 questions was sent to the 12 ESHRE CNRs who reported an established national system of verification of education in Clinical Embryology, with specific questions focused on the training of Clinical Embryologists. All 12 CNRs responded. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Analysis showed that European national education programmes in Clinical Embryology could be split into 4 categories: non-existent (13 countries), recommended (5 countries), simple compulsory (9 countries), and complex compulsory (4 countries). A national document stating the minimum education requirements for staff to work in an IVF laboratory was reported by 19 respondents. The requirement to follow a prescribed theoretical and laboratory training programme in ART was compulsory in 9 and 10 countries, respectively. Some form of verification of laboratory skills, theoretical knowledge in ART, and continuing professional development was required in 12, 10, and 9 countries, respectively. A national trainee's logbook format was reported by seven respondents and a national tutorial system was available in six countries. Only seven countries had official licensing of ART laboratory staff. The title of Clinical Embryologist was not recognized in 13 countries and in 6 countries, it was used only by professional bodies, while in 12 countries the profession was at least cited in governmental regulations. The ESHRE Clinical Embryologist Certificate was officially recognized in eight countries. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: The survey took place in two steps and the results were then combined to provide a representative picture for most of the European countries sampled. The vast majority, but not all, of the CNRs answered the request to participate in the survey. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The professional recognition of Clinical Embryology within Europe is steadily evolving. However, it remains a concern that many countries continue to not recognize Clinical Embryology as a profession, with a vast difference in the reported organization of educational and training programmes and verification of skills. It is recommended that a training programme for Clinical Embryology and ART in Europe should be standardized and relevant issues should be addressed by competent authorities and European Union institutions. ESHRE is best placed to take a leading role in this educational process. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The Working Group members who are the authors of this article did not receive payments for the completion of this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

RESUMEN

STUDY QUESTION: What is the accuracy and agreement of embryologists when assessing the implantation probability of blastocysts using time-lapse imaging (TLI), and can it be improved with a data-driven algorithm? SUMMARY ANSWER: The overall interobserver agreement of a large panel of embryologists was moderate and prediction accuracy was modest, while the purpose-built artificial intelligence model generally resulted in higher performance metrics. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Previous studies have demonstrated significant interobserver variability amongst embryologists when assessing embryo quality. However, data concerning embryologists' ability to predict implantation probability using TLI is still lacking. Emerging technologies based on data-driven tools have shown great promise for improving embryo selection and predicting clinical outcomes. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: TLI video files of 136 embryos with known implantation data were retrospectively collected from two clinical sites between 2018 and 2019 for the performance assessment of 36 embryologists and comparison with a deep neural network (DNN). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We recruited 39 embryologists from 13 different countries. All participants were blinded to clinical outcomes. A total of 136 TLI videos of embryos that reached the blastocyst stage were used for this experiment. Each embryo's likelihood of successfully implanting was assessed by 36 embryologists, providing implantation probability grades (IPGs) from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates a very low likelihood of implantation and 5 indicates a very high likelihood. Subsequently, three embryologists with over 5 years of experience provided Gardner scores. All 136 blastocysts were categorized into three quality groups based on their Gardner scores. Embryologist predictions were then converted into predictions of implantation (IPG ≥ 3) and no implantation (IPG ≤ 2). Embryologists' performance and agreement were assessed using Fleiss kappa coefficient. A 10-fold cross-validation DNN was developed to provide IPGs for TLI video files. The model's performance was compared to that of the embryologists. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Logistic regression was employed for the following confounding variables: country of residence, academic level, embryo scoring system, log years of experience and experience using TLI. None were found to have a statistically significant impact on embryologist performance at α = 0.05. The average implantation prediction accuracy for the embryologists was 51.9% for all embryos (N = 136). The average accuracy of the embryologists when assessing top quality and poor quality embryos (according to the Gardner score categorizations) was 57.5% and 57.4%, respectively, and 44.6% for fair quality embryos. Overall interobserver agreement was moderate (κ = 0.56, N = 136). The best agreement was achieved in the poor + top quality group (κ = 0.65, N = 77), while the agreement in the fair quality group was lower (κ = 0.25, N = 59). The DNN showed an overall accuracy rate of 62.5%, with accuracies of 62.2%, 61% and 65.6% for the poor, fair and top quality groups, respectively. The AUC for the DNN was higher than that of the embryologists overall (0.70 DNN vs 0.61 embryologists) as well as in all of the Gardner groups (DNN vs embryologists-Poor: 0.69 vs 0.62; Fair: 0.67 vs 0.53; Top: 0.77 vs 0.54). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Blastocyst assessment was performed using video files acquired from time-lapse incubators, where each video contained data from a single focal plane. Clinical data regarding the underlying cause of infertility and endometrial thickness before the transfer was not available, yet may explain implantation failure and lower accuracy of IPGs. Implantation was defined as the presence of a gestational sac, whereas the detection of fetal heartbeat is a more robust marker of embryo viability. The raw data were anonymized to the extent that it was not possible to quantify the number of unique patients and cycles included in the study, potentially masking the effect of bias from a limited patient pool. Furthermore, the lack of demographic data makes it difficult to draw conclusions on how representative the dataset was of the wider population. Finally, embryologists were required to assess the implantation potential, not embryo quality. Although this is not the traditional approach to embryo evaluation, morphology/morphokinetics as a means of assessing embryo quality is believed to be strongly correlated with viability and, for some methods, implantation potential. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Embryo selection is a key element in IVF success and continues to be a challenge. Improving the predictive ability could assist in optimizing implantation success rates and other clinical outcomes and could minimize the financial and emotional burden on the patient. This study demonstrates moderate agreement rates between embryologists, likely due to the subjective nature of embryo assessment. In particular, we found that average embryologist accuracy and agreement were significantly lower for fair quality embryos when compared with that for top and poor quality embryos. Using data-driven algorithms as an assistive tool may help IVF professionals increase success rates and promote much needed standardization in the IVF clinic. Our results indicate a need for further research regarding technological advancement in this field. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Embryonics Ltd is an Israel-based company. Funding for the study was partially provided by the Israeli Innovation Authority, grant #74556. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

RESEARCH QUESTION: Does the embryologist performing the embryo transfer impact the cycle outcome, in terms of ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR)? DESIGN: This single-centre retrospective study analysed the results, corrected for main confounders, from 28 embryologists and 32 physicians who performed respectively 24,992 and 24,669 fresh embryo transfers (either at cleavage or blastocyst stage) during a 20-year period from January 2000 to December 2019, in a university-affiliated tertiary care assisted reproductive technology (ART) centre. Primary outcome was OPR, defined as the number of viable pregnancies that had completed at least 12 weeks of gestation on the total number of embryo transfers performed. The study also assessed whether the embryologist's experience, measured in terms of number of embryo transfers performed prior to the day of the procedure, had an impact on their performance. The secondary aim was to assess which variable, between the embryologist and physician, more significantly impacted OPR. RESULTS: The overall unadjusted OPR was 22.54%. The embryologist performing the embryo transfer was found to significantly affect the OPR (P < 0.0001), corrected for potential confounders. However, the physician factor made a slightly greater contribution to the model (likelihood ratio 21.86, P < 0.001 versus likelihood ratio 17.20, P < 0.0001). No significant association was found between the experience of the embryologist and OPR (P = 0.067). CONCLUSIONS: These results show how the 'human factor' influences the chances of a positive outcome in the final step of a high-tech procedure and underline the importance of implementing an operator quality performance programme (both for physicians and embryologists) to ensure the maintenance of benchmark results and eventually retrain underperforming operators.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Clinical embryologists are highly trained laboratory professionals with multiple roles, including laboratory, clinical, biobanking and quality system management. In most European countries, clinical embryologists are trained to work in Medically Assisted Reproduction (MAR) centres without a specifically dedicated educational path. The criteria required for employment vary according to the educational structure and the public or private nature of the centre. We have herein described the educational profile required by Italian clinical embryologists to work in MAR centres of the National Health System (NHS). Public centres currently represent 36% of all the Italian MAR clinics. According to the Italian law, a future clinical embryologist must achieve a 3-4 year unpaid post-graduate specialization in a different field, choosing from Genetics, Microbiology, Clinical Pathology or Nutrition. Accesses to the above-mentioned post-graduate courses are themselves very limited. Clinical embryologists are basically trained by senior colleagues. This situation makes inevitably difficult to recruit laboratory staff in NHS centres. Moreover, it represents an emblematic example of the need for an equal training curriculum, possibly ensuring a comparable education quality, mobility of trainees and dissemination of skills for clinical embryologists all over Europe.

RESUMEN

IVF techniques have changed over time with the aim of improving clinical results. Today, embryology is facing a change common to most areas of medicine, the introduction of automation. The use of automated systems in the IVF laboratory is already happening, for example, with electronic witnessing and the ranking of embryos according to their implantation potential. It is expected that in the near future, various systems in the IVF laboratory will be automated. In this way, gamete manipulation would cease to be manual and embryo culture and selection would be performed by means of microfluidics and artificial intelligence. Therefore, the tasks of the embryologist will inevitably be reduced. However, new functions related to data capture, management and analysis will emerge, along with other research skills and increased communication with other professionals and patients.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of an electronic witnessing system (EWS) on witnessing standard operating procedures and to assess embryologist perceptions of the EWS. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Private in vitro fertilization laboratory network. PATIENTS: None. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The time difference between manual and electronic double-witnessing procedures, and embryologist perceptions of the EWS. RESULTS: From 342 witnessing times analyzed (114 EWS, 114 manual, and 114 interruptions to witnesses), the EWS reduced mean (SD) total witnessing time (in seconds) by 91.5 (23.6) for intracytoplasmic sperm injection, 62.0 (17.9) for Day 3 embryo assessment, 58.3 (18.9) for fresh embryo transfer, and 59.4 (13.3) for frozen embryo transfer. This time reduction significantly decreased the overall time required for double-witnessing by 3.1- to 5.2-fold. A survey with 50 embryologists within the laboratory network indicated that most embryologists considered the EWS to improve sample traceability (78.3%), reduce errors in labeling issues (80.4%), and reduce the risk of sample mismatch errors by minimizing disruptions (60.9%). Furthermore, 82.6% thought that visual completion of the EWS dashboard provided peace of mind when leaving work and 84.8% were more confident knowing that all procedures were completed according to the EWS. CONCLUSIONS: An EWS can improve laboratory efficiency by significantly decreasing the time required for witnessing procedures and by minimizing interruptions. The EWS was well perceived by embryologists and laboratory managers and enhanced their confidence and peace of mind with regard to witnessing compliance and safety/accuracy.

RESUMEN

STUDY QUESTION: What has the ESHRE programme 'ESHRE Certification for Clinical Embryologists' achieved after 10 years? SUMMARY ANSWER: The post-exam analysis showed a pass rate of 60% for Clinical and 50% for Senior Clinical Embryologists and a high level of internal consistency of all exams, leading to a total of 773 certified Clinical and 493 Senior Clinical Embryologists over the decade. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In an ESHRE survey on the educational and professional status of Clinical Embryology in Europe, it was found that education of laboratory personnel working in the field of assisted reproduction is highly variable between countries. In 2008, ESHRE introduced a programme, curriculum and certification in the field of Clinical Embryology. Knowledge gained by postgraduate study of recommended literature, following a clear curriculum, is verified by a written two-level exam for obtaining a certificate for Clinical (basic) or Senior Clinical (advanced) Embryologists. With a total of 1266 certificates awarded over a period of 10 years and recognition by the Union Européenne des Médecins Spécialistes and their Council for European Specialists Medical Assessment, the ESHRE Clinical Embryology exams have become an internationally recognized educational standard in the field of Clinical Embryology. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: A retrospective analysis of all applications for ESHRE Clinical (2009-2018) and Senior Clinical Embryologist Certification (2008-2018) and exam results of the first decade was carried out by the Steering Committee for Clinical Embryologist Certification. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: A total of 2894 applications for ESHRE Certification for Clinical Embryologists and the results of 10 exams for the Clinical (1478 candidates) and 11 exams for Senior Clinical (987 candidates) levels were analysed. A detailed post-exam retrospective analysis was performed regarding difficulty, discrimination and reliability levels of 1600 multiple-choice questions (MCQs) with a single best answer among four options, from eight different curriculum topics (Basic cell biology, Genetics, Developmental biology, Female reproduction, Male reproduction, IVF laboratory, Cryopreservation and Laboratory management), representing the core theoretical knowledge of Clinical Embryology. Difficulty levels of the MCQs were subsequently compared regarding each topic and each yearly exam. The participation and success rates in the ESHRE Clinical Embryology exams were also assessed in terms of the educational and geographic backgrounds of candidates. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Over the 10 years studied, the mean pass rate for the Clinical Embryologist exam was 60% (range 41-86%), and for the Senior Clinical Embryologist exam was 50% (range 34-81%). On average, 63% European candidates and 35% non-European candidates passed the Clinical Embryologist exam, while 52% European candidates and 31% non-European candidates passed the Senior Clinical Embryologist exam. The candidates' educational level impacted on the success of the Clinical Embryologist exam but not of the Senior Clinical Embryologist exam. The mean difficulty indices by study topic showed that in the period of 10 years, there were no statistically significant differences between topics, for either the Clinical or Senior Clinical Embryologist exams. However, the overall exam difficulty varied between years. Reassuringly, the exam MCQ discrimination and reliability indices always showed a high level of internal consistency in all exams. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: Some data from the initial ESHRE certification programme were not obtained electronically, in particular data for education, implying tables and figures reflect the specified valid data periods. Several countries exhibit different study profiles for those working in ART laboratories, such that laboratory technicians/technologists predominate in some countries, while in others only biologists and medical doctors are allowed to work with human embryos. Such differences could consequently affect the exam performance of candidates from specific countries. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The ESHRE exams on Clinical Embryology are the most widely, internationally accepted tests of knowledge in the rapidly growing area of human reproduction. Clinical Embryology is increasingly recognized as a specific discipline for scientific staff who are collaborating closely with clinicians in managing human infertility through medically assisted reproduction. The analysis of the first 10 years of application of a two-level exam for Clinical Embryology shows a consistent high quality and reliability of the exam and MCQs used. These results represent an important follow-up of the quality of the ESHRE Certification programme for Clinical Embryologists, and convincingly position Clinical Embryology in the wider group of health disciplines that are harmonized through professional bodies such as ESHRE and European Board & College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. The exams provide a clear step towards the increasing professional recognition and establishment of Clinical Embryology within health systems at both European and international level. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: No competing interest. All costs of the Steering Committee meetings were covered by ESHRE.

RESUMEN

RESEARCH QUESTION: Is intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) operator experience associated with fertilization, usable blastocyst development and sustained implantation rates (SIR) when at least two embryologists carry out ICSI for a single cohort of oocytes? DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study of all IVF/ICSI cycles at a single large infertility centre between 2008 and 2018. Cycles were included if a cohort of oocytes was split between two embryologists for ICSI. The embryologist's experience of ICSI was used to evaluate laboratory and clinical outcomes overall and by pairs of inseminating embryologists. Logistic regression, analysis of variance and Kruskal-Wallis testing were used where appropriate. RESULTS: Analysis of 14,362 ICSI procedures showed an association between least ICSI experience and lower mean fertilization rates (P < 0.0001), higher odds of failed fertilization (adjusted OR 4.3; P < 0.0001) and lower number of fertilization 'wins' per cohort (P < 0.0001). Usable blastocyst development rates (number of usable blastocysts/number of two pronuclear zygotes) were not associated with ICSI embryologist experience (P = 0.44), but the odds of obtaining no usable blastocysts were higher (adjusted OR 1.4; P < 0.0001) and the proportion of usable blastocyst 'wins' was lower (P = 0.0001) when embryologists with the least experience carried out ICSI. Increased ICSI experience was associated with higher mean SIR (P < 0.0001). Laboratory and clinical outcomes were similar among embryologists once 1000 ICSI cycles and above were carried out. CONCLUSIONS: Increased ICSI operator experience is associated with higher fertilization rates, SIR and a lower likelihood of failed fertilization and usable blastocyst development. Splitting a single oocyte cohort between more than one embryologist for ICSI is a quality-control measure that can be implemented.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To determine the agreement between published time-lapse algorithms in selecting the best day-5 embryo for transfer, as well as the agreement between these algorithms and embryologists. DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: Private in vitro fertilization center. PATIENT(S): Four hundred and twenty-eight embryos from 100 cycles cultured in the EmbryoScope. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Interalgorithm agreement as assessed by the Fleiss kappa coefficient. RESULT(S): Of seven published algorithms analyzed in this study, only one of the 18 possible pairs showed very good agreement (κ = 0.867); one pair showed good agreement (κ = 0.725), four pairs showed fair agreement (κ = 0.226-0.334), and the remaining 12 pairs showed poor agreement (κ = 0.008-0.149). Even in the best-case scenario, the majority of algorithms showed poor to moderate kappa scores (κ = 0.337-0.722) for the assessment of agreement between the embryo(s) selected as "best" by the algorithms and the embryo that was chosen by the majority (>5) of embryologists, as well as with the embryo that was actually selected in the laboratory on the day of transfer (κ = 0.315-0.802). CONCLUSION(S): The results of this study raise concerns as to whether the tested algorithms are applicable in different clinical settings, emphasizing the need for proper external validation before clinical use.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The embryologist presides over the fulfillment of a patient's treatment in the laboratory for IVF through use of assisted reproduction techniques, and is in a unique position to impart quality to the process. Although the technical skill of the embryologist is critical, the embryologist's contribution to quality is equally conveyed through a knowledge of reproductive biology, keen observation and judgment, astute decision-making, the 'grit' to work under pressure and time constraints, and a sense of mission in the provision and continual development of a safe and effective laboratory. The embryologist also ensures that the laboratory complies with the regulations of federal, state, local and institutional authorities and the recommendations and guidelines of professional associations. In these roles, the embryologist assumes unique responsibilities counterbalanced by the unique rewards of assisting patients in having a family. This article aspires to illuminate this singular profession for those who may be contemplating a career in embryology and act as a resource for those who seek insight into this amalgam of basic science, technical proficiency, and managerial skill and acumen that characterize the practice of clinical embryology and the myriad of ways that practitioners contribute to the quality of assisted reproduction techniques and patient care.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

STUDY QUESTION: What is the recognition of clinical embryology and the current status of clinical embryologists in European countries, regarding educational levels, responsibilities and workload, and need for a formal education in assisted reproductive technology (ART)? SUMMARY ANSWER: It is striking that the profession of clinical embryology, almost 40 years after the introduction of IVF, is still not officially recognized in most European countries. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Reproductive medicine has developed into a sophisticated multidisciplinary medical branch since the birth of Louise Brown 37 years ago. The European Board & College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (EBCOG) has recognized reproductive medicine as a subspeciality and has developed a subspeciality training for gynaecologists in collaboration with the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). However, nothing similar exists for the field of clinical embryology or for clinical embryologists. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A questionnaire about the situation in clinical embryology in the period of 2012-2013 in the respective European country was sent to ESHRE National representatives (basic scientists only) in December 2013. At this time, 28 European countries had at least one basic scientist in the ESHRE Committee of National Representatives. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The survey consisted of 46 numeric, dichotomous (yes/no) or descriptive questions. Answers were obtained from 27 out of 28 countries and the data were tabulated. Data about the numbers of 'ESHRE Certified Embryologists' were taken from the ESHRE Steering Committee for Embryologist Certification. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In 2012, more than 7000 laboratory staff from 1349 IVF clinics in 27 European countries performed over 700 000 fresh and frozen ART cycles. Despite this, clinical embryology is only recognized as an official profession in 3 out of 27 national health systems. In most countries clinical embryologists need to be registered under another profession, and have limited possibilities for organized education in clinical embryology. Mostly they are trained for practical work by senior colleagues. ESHRE embryologist certification so far constitutes the only internationally recognized qualification; however this cannot be considered a subspecialization. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Data were obtained through different methods, by involving national embryologist societies and cycle registers, collecting information from centre to centre, and in some cases by individual assessment of the situation. For these reasons, the results should be interpreted with caution. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This paper presents the current status of clinical embryology and clinical embryologists in Europe and is an important step towards implementation of clinical embryology as an officially recognized profession. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: None. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: No.

Asunto(s)