Time-lapse imaging: clearly useful to both laboratory personnel and patient outcomes versus just because we can doesn't mean we should

Fertile Battle

Like Comment

Volume 109, Issue 4, Pages 584–591


Richard J. Paulson, M.D., M.S., David E. Reichman, M.D., Nikica Zaninovic, M.S., Ph.D., H.C.L.D., E.L.D., Linnea R. Goodman, M.D., Catherine Racowsky, Ph.D.


Over the last 50 years, embryo culture techniques for in vitro fertilization (IVF) have continued to evolve. The latest evolution raises a controversial question—whether culturing embryos in systems which allow for undisturbed time-lapse monitoring (TLM) improve our fundamental understanding of embryogenesis, and whether that understanding can reliably translate into improved clinical outcomes (1).

Read the full text here.

Which argument in this paper would you agree with?
Neither for nor against
Created with Survey Maker

Fertility and Sterility

Editorial Office, American Society for Reproductive Medicine

Fertility and Sterility® is an international journal for obstetricians, gynecologists, reproductive endocrinologists, urologists, basic scientists and others who treat and investigate problems of infertility and human reproductive disorders. 


Go to the profile of Micah J Hill
over 3 years ago

Thank you for this fantastic review of time-lapse imaging.  Amazingly balanced, critical, insightful and succinct!    I know we need more data, but what is the authors gut feeling on the future of time-lapse imaging?  Mainstream and here to stay or another modality that falls to the curb?

Go to the profile of Richard J. Paulson
over 3 years ago

Thanks, Micah! It definitely adds information. Whether a lab adds that information may depend on whether it costs $1,000, $10,000 or $100,000.