Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27006293›Full record

ArticlePaediatric and perinatal epidemiology2016

Methods for a Retrospective Population-based and Clinic-based Subfertility Cohort Study: the Fertility Experiences Study.

Joseph B Stanford, Jessica N Sanders, Sara E Simonsen, Ahmad Hammoud, Mark Gibson, Ken R Smith

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Large-Scale Data Harmonization Across Prospective Studies.American journal of epidemiology · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Joseph B StanfordOffice of Cooperative Reproductive Health, Division of Public Health, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.
Jessica N SandersOffice of Cooperative Reproductive Health, Division of Public Health, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.
Sara E SimonsenOffice of Cooperative Reproductive Health, Division of Public Health, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.
Ahmad HammoudDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT.
Mark GibsonDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT.
Ken R SmithDepartment of Family and Consumer Studies, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.

Funding

Outcomes of Infertility Treatments in Clinic and Population-Based CohortsR21HD060213 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI STANFORD, JOSEPH BARNEY · 2009 to 2010
$409k
NICHD NIH HHS R21 HD060213
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMost cohort-based research for subfertility has been conducted in clinic-based cohorts, which may differ from population-based cohorts.

methodsWe retrospectively recruited parallel cohorts of subfertile women: one by sampling two specialty fertility clinics in Utah, and one by population-based sampling based on marriage and birth records. The index date (of first clinic visit or subfertility status) was between 2000 and 2009, and we linked the women recruited to subsequent birth certificate records through December 2010.

resultsWe enrolled 459 women through clinic-based sampling and 501 women through population-based sampling. Clinic-based women were older, had higher annual household income and more likely to have had a most intensive treatment of intrauterine insemination (31%) or in vitro fertilisation (46%) than women from population recruitment (19% and 14% respectively). Conversely, they were less likely to have received no medical treatment (9%) compared to women from population recruitment (41%). For both types of sampling, prior to eligibility screening, non-responders were less likely to link to a live birth than responders: 51% vs. 58% for clinic-based, and 69% vs. 76% for the population-based with an index date in 2004.

conclusionsPopulation-based sampling for subfertility cohort research identifies women who were more likely to have had less intensive treatment or no treatment. However, in both clinic-based and population-based sampling, women who have had a live birth are more likely to respond to retrospective recruitment.

Indexed as

AdultBirth RateFemaleFertilization in VitroHumansInfertilityMalePatient SelectionPreconception CarePregnancyResearch DesignRetrospective StudiesSurveys and QuestionnairesUtahYoung Adultclinic-basedpopulation-basedretrospective cohortsubfertility

Identifiers

PMID27006293
PMCPMC4899249

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.