Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Scopus||Web of Science®||Altmetric|
|Title:||To QC or not to QC: the key to a consistent laboratory?|
|Citation:||Reproduction Fertility and Development, 2008; 20(1):23-32|
|Publisher:||C S I R O Publishing|
|Michelle Lane, Megan Mitchell, Kara S. Cashman, Deanne Feil, Sarah Wakefield and Deirdre L. Zander-Fox|
|Abstract:||A limiting factor in every embryology laboratory is its capacity to grow ‘normal’ embryos. In human in vitro fertilisation (IVF), there is considerable awareness that the environment of the laboratory itself can alter the quality of the embryos produced and the industry as a whole has moved towards the implementation of auditable quality management systems. Furthermore, in some countries, such as Australia, an established quality management system is mandatory for clinical IVF practice, but such systems are less frequently found in other embryology laboratories. Although the same challenges of supporting consistent and repeatable embryo development are paramount to success in all embryology laboratories, it could be argued that they are more important in a research setting where often the measured outcomes are at an intracellular or molecular level. In the present review, we have outlined the role and importance of quality control and quality assurance systems in any embryo laboratory and have highlighted examples of how simple monitoring can provide consistency and avoid the induction of artefacts, irrespective of the laboratory’s purpose, function or species involved.|
|Keywords:||Blastocyst; Animals; Humans; Mice; Ammonia; Culture Media; Fertilization in Vitro; Embryo Culture Techniques; Embryology; Embryonic Development; Quality Control; Laboratories|
|Rights:||© IETS 2008|
|Appears in Collections:||Obstetrics and Gynaecology publications|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.