Interobserver and intraobserver variation in day 3 embryo grading.

OBJECTIVE Variations in pregnancy rates (PR) between IVF programs are due to multiple factors, including embryo quality. Standardized embryo grading systems have been developed to improve communication between embryologists and clinicians. However, these grading systems have not been validated. We sought to quantify both interobserver and intraobserver variability using a standardized day 3 embryo grading system (Veeck scale). DESIGN Prospective, sample-randomized, controlled, blinded study. SETTING University hospital. PATIENT(S) Twenty-six practicing embryologists. INTERVENTION(S) Observation and grading of 35 video clips of day 3 embryos. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S) Interobserver and intraobserver variability. Embryologists were also assessed by education level, years of experience, size of IVF program, and type of grading system used. Kappa scores and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated. RESULT(S) Practicing embryologists differed from control (Lucinda Veeck) by as much as two grades, despite using the same grading system (Kappa = 0.24, interclass correlation coefficient = 0.98). There was also variability in grading the same embryo (Kappa = 0.69, interclass correlation coefficient = 0.88). Programs with higher cycle numbers per year had lower variability. CONCLUSION(S) There is substantial interobserver variability and moderate intraobserver variability among embryologists. Such variability could alter both the expected quality of embryos transferred, as well as the number transferred, both of which directly impact IVF program success.

[1]  D. De Neubourg,et al.  Prevention of twin pregnancy after in-vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection based on strict embryo criteria: a prospective randomized clinical trial. , 1999, Human Reproduction.

[2]  L. Rienzi,et al.  Day 3 embryo transfer with combined evaluation at the pronuclear and cleavage stages compares favourably with day 5 blastocyst transfer. , 2002, Human reproduction.

[3]  L Hoover,et al.  Evaluation of a new embryo-grading system to predict pregnancy rates following in vitro fertilization. , 1995, Gynecologic and obstetric investigation.

[4]  J D Fisch,et al.  The Graduated Embryo Score (GES) predicts blastocyst formation and pregnancy rate from cleavage-stage embryos. , 2001, Human reproduction.

[5]  P Barlow,et al.  Embryo scoring as a prognostic tool in IVF treatment. , 1987, Human reproduction.

[6]  S. Holck,et al.  Quantification of microvessel density of breast carcinoma: an assessment of the inter- and intraobserver variation. , 1999, Breast.

[7]  S. Campbell,et al.  The cumulative embryo score: a predictive embryo scoring technique to select the optimal number of embryos to transfer in an in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer programme. , 1992, Human reproduction.

[8]  S. Miglior,et al.  Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility in the evaluation of ultrasonic pachymetry measurements of central corneal thickness , 2004, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[9]  T. Namiki,et al.  Observer variability in endometrial cytology using kappa statistics. , 1992, Journal of clinical pathology.

[10]  D. De Neubourg,et al.  Characterization of a top quality embryo, a step towards single-embryo transfer. , 1999, Human reproduction.

[11]  L. Broemeling,et al.  Interobserver and intraobserver variability in measurement of non-small-cell carcinoma lung lesions: implications for assessment of tumor response. , 2003, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[12]  P. Kolm,et al.  Embryo implantation in in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection: impact of cleavage status, morphology grade, and number of embryos transferred. , 1999, Fertility and sterility.

[13]  D. Gardner,et al.  Assessment of embryo viability: the ability to select a single embryo for transfer--a review. , 2003, Placenta.

[14]  G. Watson,et al.  Intraobserver and interobserver variability for the histologic diagnosis of chorioamnionitis. , 2004, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[15]  L. Veeck.  Oocyte Assessment and Biological Performance , 1988, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[16]  J. Shaw,et al.  A formula for scoring human embryo growth rates in in vitro fertilization: Its value in predicting pregnancy and in comparison with visual estimates of embryo quality , 1986, Journal of in Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer.

[17]  Maamoun M Al-Aynati,et al.  Interobserver and intraobserver variability using the Fuhrman grading system for renal cell carcinoma. , 2003, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[18]  D. Waldman,et al.  Assessment of inter- and intraobserver agreement between intravascular US and aortic angiography of thoracic aortic injury. , 2003, Radiology.

[19]  N. Desai,et al.  Morphological evaluation of human embryos and derivation of an embryo quality scoring system specific for day 3 embryos: a preliminary study. , 2000, Human reproduction.