SynthesisJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2016
The impact of patient preselection on reported IVF outcomes.
Synthesis in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A)-finally revealed.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2020Article
- Should We Offer In Vitro Fertilization to Couples with Unexplained Recurrent Pregnancy Loss?Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Review
- Cleavage Stage versus Blastocyst Stage Embryo Transfer in Oocyte Donation Cycles.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2019Article
- Recurrent Implantation Failure-update overview on etiology, diagnosis, treatment and future directions.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2018Review
- Is the hypothesis of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) still supportable? A review.Journal of ovarian research · 2017Review
- Should preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) be implemented to routine IVF practice?Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2016Article
- The importance of redundancy of functional ovarian reserve when investigating potential genetic effects on ovarian function.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We, in this manuscript, address the fact that increasing numbers of published studies in reproductive medicine selectively report outcomes for only favorably selected patients; while failing to note that, so reported outcome data,therefore, cannot be applied to unselected patient populations. Almost all favorable patient selection methods, starting with prolonged embryo culture to blastocyst stage, have, thus, been widely misrepresented in the literature since they almost universally report outcomes only in reference to embryo transfer. These outcome reports, however, do not include outcomes for poorer prognosis patients who do not reach embryo transfer. Study outcomes are universally applicable only if performed in unselected patient populations and reported with reference point cycle start (intent to treat). All other studies greatly exaggerate clinical pregnancy and live birth rates if applied to general populations, unless specifically noting that they can be extrapolated only to women who reach embryo transfer.
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.