ReviewFertility and sterility2015
Cost and efficacy comparison of in vitro fertilization and tubal anastomosis for women after tubal ligation.
Review in Fertility and sterility, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.
- Economic evaluation of sterilization reversal in infertility treatment: A systematic review.PloS one · 2026Pooled it
- Comparison of tubal reanastomosis and in vitro fertilisation for restoring fertility in women with a history of tubal ligation.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Article
- Sterilization, Infecundity, and Reproductive Autonomy in Rural, Suburban, and Urban America: Results From a National Survey.Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health · 2025Article
- Review
- Unveiling the Promise: A Comprehensive Review of Salpingectomy as a Vanguard for Ovarian Cancer Prevention.Cureus · 2024Review
- A novel machine learning model for predicting clinical pregnancy after laparoscopic tubal anastomosis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Article
- Decision tree model predicts live birth after surgery for moderate-to-severe intrauterine adhesions.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2022Observational
- Conventional Laparoscopy Is the Better Option for Tubal Sterilization Reversal: A Closer Look at Tubal Reanastomosis.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2021Review
- Role of Reconstructive Microsurgery in Tubal Infertility in Young Women.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Laparoscopic Reversal of Tubal Sterilization; A Retrospective Study Over 135 Cases.Frontiers in surgery · 2018Article
- Declining rates of sterilisation reversal procedures in western Australian women from 1990 to 2008: the relationship with age, hospital type and government policy changes.BMC women's health · 2017Article
- Where Microsurgical Tubal Reanastomosis Stands in theGynecology and minimally invasive therapyReview
- A Novel Technique for Essure Reversal.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare cost and efficacy of tubal anastomosis to in vitro fertilization (IVF) in women who desired fertility after a tubal ligation.
designCost-effectiveness analysis.
settingNot applicable. PATIENT(S): Not applicable. INTERVENTION(S): Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Cost per ongoing pregnancy. RESULT(S): Cost per ongoing pregnancy for women after tubal anastomosis ranged from $16,446 to $223,482 (2014 USD), whereas IVF ranged from $32,902 to $111,679 (2014 USD). Across maternal age groups <35 and 35-40, years tubal anastomosis was more cost effective than IVF for ongoing pregnancy. Sensitivity analyses validated these findings across a wide range of ongoing pregnancy probabilities as well as costs per procedure. CONCLUSION(S): Tubal anastomosis was the most cost-effective approach for most women less than 41 years of age, whereas IVF was the most cost-effective approach for women aged ≥41 years who desired fertility after tubal ligation. A model was created that can be modified based on cost and success rates in individual clinics for improved patient counseling.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.