Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28069012›Full record

SynthesisReproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E2017

Systematic review of worldwide trends in assisted reproductive technology 2004-2013.

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

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 159 papers, 16 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
159citing papers in PubMed, 16 pooled it
–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

159 citing papers in PubMed, 16 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Vasodilators for women undergoing fertility treatment.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Article
  20. Review

99 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Vitaly A KushnirThe Center for Human Reproduction, 21 East 69th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA. vkushnir@thechr.com.
David H BaradThe Center for Human Reproduction, 21 East 69th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA.
David F AlbertiniThe Center for Human Reproduction, 21 East 69th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA.
Sarah K DarmonThe Center for Human Reproduction, 21 East 69th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA.
Norbert GleicherThe Center for Human Reproduction, 21 East 69th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAssisted Reproductive Technology (ART) has undergone considerable changes over the last decade, with consequences on ART outcomes in different regions of the world being unknown.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review of published national and regional ART registry data to assess how changes in clinical practice between 2004 and 2013 have impacted outcomes in Australia and New Zealand, Canada, Continental Europe, the United Kingdom (U.K.), Japan, Latin America, and the United States (U.S.). The data reflect 7,079,145 total ART cycles utilizing both fresh and previously cryopreserved embryos from autologous oocytes that resulted in 1,454,724 live births. This review focused on the following measures: ART cycle volume, use of cryopreserved embryos, single embryo transfer (SET), live birth rates in fresh and frozen-thawed cycles, and perinatal outcomes in recent years.

resultsSETs and utilization of frozen-thawed embryos increased worldwide over the study period. In 2012 SET utilization in all ART cycles was highest in Japan and Australia/New Zealand (82.6% and 76.3% respectively) and lowest in Latin America (16.0%). While gradual improvements in live birth rates were observed in most regions, some demonstrated declines. By 2012-2013, fresh cycle live birth rates were highest in the U.S. (29%) and lowest in Japan (5%). In Japan, the observed decline in fresh cycle live birth rate coincided with transition to minimal stimulation protocols, transfer of frozen-thawed rather than fresh embryos, and implementation of an SET policy. Similarly, implementation of an SET policy in parts of Canada was followed by a decline in fresh cycle live birth rate. Increasing live birth rates in frozen-thawed embryo cycles, seen all over the world, partially compensated for declines in fresh ART cycles. During 2012-2013 Australia/New Zealand and Japan reported the lowest multiple delivery rates of 5.6 and 4% respectively while the US had the highest of 27%. In recent years, preterm delivery rates in all regions ranged between 9.0 to 16.6% for singletons, 53.9 to 67.3% for twins, and 91.4 to 100% for triplets and higher order multiples. Inconsistencies in the way perinatal outcome data are presented by various registries, made comparison between regions difficult.

conclusionsART practices are characterized by outcome differences between regions. International consensus on the definition of ART success, which accounts for perinatal outcomes, may help to standardize worldwide ART practice and improve outcomes.

trial registrationPROSPERO ( CRD42016033011 ).

Indexed as

Birth RateLive BirthAustraliaCanadaEuropeFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornJapanLatin AmericaNew ZealandPregnancyReproductive Techniques, AssistedUnited StatesAssisted reproductive technologyEmbryo cryopreservationIn vitro fertilizationLive birth ratesSingle embryo transfer

Identifiers

PMID28069012
PMCPMC5223447

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.