ArticlePloS one2016
Effect of Embryo Banking on U.S. National Assisted Reproductive Technology Live Birth Rates.
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.
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, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review of worldwide trends in assisted reproductive technology 2004-2013.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2017Pooled it
- The declining efficiency of IVF in the USA.Human reproduction open · 2026Article
- Don't panic? Or don't conflate?Human reproduction open · 2026Article
- Revisiting selected ethical aspects of current clinical in vitro fertilization (IVF) practice.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2022Review
- Time associations between U.S. birth rates and add-Ons to IVF practice between 2005-2016.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2021Article
- Utilization of preimplantation genetic testing in the USA.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2021Article
- 20 years of the European IVF-monitoring Consortium registry: what have we learned? A comparison with registries from two other regions.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2020Article
- The status of preimplantation genetic testing in the UK and USA.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2020Article
- Evaluation of the Second Follicular Wave Phenomenon in Natural Cycle Assisted Reproduction: A Key Option for Poor Responders through Luteal Phase Oocyte Retrieval.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2019Observational
- Worldwide decline of IVF birth rates and its probable causes.Human reproduction open · 2019Article
- The cost of a euploid embryo identified from preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A): a counseling tool.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2018Article
- Transitioning from Infertility-Based (ART 1.0) to Elective (ART 2.0) Use of Assisted Reproductive Technologies and the DOHaD Hypothesis: Do We Need to Change Consenting?Seminars in reproductive medicine · 2018Review
- National trends and outcomes of autologous in vitro fertilization cycles among women ages 40 years and older.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2017Article
- Oocytes/Embryos Banking: A Vague Hope for Poor Responder Women.Journal of reproduction & infertilityArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.