Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27159215›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Effect of Embryo Banking on U.S. National Assisted Reproductive Technology Live Birth Rates.

Vitaly A Kushnir, David H Barad, David F Albertini, Sarah K Darmon, Norbert Gleicher

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The declining efficiency of IVF in the USA.Human reproduction open · 2026
    Article
  3. Don't panic? Or don't conflate?Human reproduction open · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Utilization of preimplantation genetic testing in the USA.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. The status of preimplantation genetic testing in the UK and USA.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2020
    Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Vitaly A KushnirThe Center for Human Reproduction, New York, NY, United States of America.
David H BaradThe Center for Human Reproduction, New York, NY, United States of America.
David F AlbertiniThe Center for Human Reproduction, New York, NY, United States of America.
Sarah K DarmonThe Center for Human Reproduction, New York, NY, United States of America.
Norbert GleicherThe Center for Human Reproduction, New York, NY, United States of America.
Center for Human Reproduction · USUniversity of Kansas Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAssisted Reproductive Technology (ART) reports generated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) exclude embryo banking cycles from outcome calculations.

methodsWe examined data reported to the CDC in 2013 for the impact of embryo banking exclusion on national ART outcomes by recalculating autologous oocyte ART live birth rates. Inflation of reported fresh ART cycle live birth rates was assessed for all age groups of infertile women as the difference between fresh cycle live births with reference to number of initiated fresh cycles (excluding embryo banking cycles), as typically reported by the CDC, and fresh cycle live births with reference to total initiated fresh ART cycles (including embryo banking cycles).

resultsDuring 2013, out of 121,351 fresh non-donor ART cycles 27,564 (22.7%) involved embryo banking. The proportion of banking cycles increased with female age from 15.5% in women <35 years to 56.5% in women >44 years. Concomitantly, the proportion of thawed cycles decreased with advancing female age (P <0.0001). Exclusion of embryo banking cycles led to inflation of live birth rates in fresh ART cycles, increasing in size in parallel to advancing female age and utilization of embryo banking, reaching 56.3% in women age >44. The inflation of live birth rates in thawed cycles could not be calculated from the publically available CDC data but appears to be even greater.

conclusionsUtilization of embryo banking increased during 2013 with advancing female age, suggesting a potential age selection bias. Exclusion of embryo banking cycles from national ART outcome reports significantly inflated national ART success rates, especially among older women. PRÉCIS: Exclusion of embryo banking cycles from US National Assisted Reproductive Technology outcome reports significantly inflates reported success rates especially in older women.

Indexed as

Birth RateEmbryo, MammalianReproductive Techniques, AssistedAdultFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornPregnancyUnited States

Identifiers

PMID27159215
PMCPMC4861597
OpenAlexW2346104577

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.