Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28916332›Full record

ArticleFertility and sterility2017

Assessing the use of assisted reproductive technology in the United States by non-United States residents.

Aaron D Levine, Sheree L Boulet, Roberta M Berry, Denise J Jamieson, Hillary B Alberta-Sherer, Dmitry M Kissin

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Fertility and sterility, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Utilization of preimplantation genetic testing in the USA.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance - United States, 2016.Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Surveillance summaries (Washington, D.C. : 2002) · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Aaron D LevineSchool of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia; Parker H. Petit Institute for Bioengineering and Bioscience, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia. Electronic address: aaron.levine@pubpolicy.gatech.edu.
Sheree L BouletDivision of Reproductive Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Roberta M BerrySchool of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia; Honors Program, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia.
Denise J JamiesonDivision of Reproductive Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Hillary B Alberta-ShererSchool of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia.
Dmitry M KissinDivision of Reproductive Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention · USGeorgia Institute of Technology · US

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo study cross-border reproductive care (CBRC) by assessing the frequency and nature of assisted reproductive technology (ART) care that non-U.S. residents receive in the United States.

designRetrospective study of ART cycles reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National ART Surveillance System (NASS) from 2006 to 2013.

settingPrivate and academic ART clinics. PATIENT(S): Patients who participated in ART cycles in the United States from 2006 to 2013. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Frequency and trend of ART use in the U.S. by non-U.S. residents, countries of residence for non-U.S. residents, differences by residence status for specific ART treatments received, and the outcomes of these ART cycles. RESULT(S): A total of 1,271,775 ART cycles were reported to NASS from 2006 to 2013. The percentage of ART cycles performed for non-U.S. residents increased from 1.2% (n = 1,683) in 2006 to 2.8% (n = 5,381) in 2013 (P<.001), with treatment delivered to residents of 147 countries. Compared with resident cycles, non-U.S. resident cycles had higher use of oocyte donation (10.6% vs. 42.6%), gestational carriers (1.6% vs. 12.4%), and preimplantation genetic diagnosis or screening (5.3% vs. 19.1%). U.S. resident and non-U.S. resident cycles had similar embryo transfer and multiple birth rates. CONCLUSION(S): This analysis showed that non-U.S. resident cycles accounted for a growing share of all U.S. ART cycles and made higher use of specialized treatment techniques. This study provides important baseline data on CBRC in the U.S. and may also prove to be useful to organizations interested in improving access to fertility treatments.

Indexed as

Medical TourismPatient Acceptance of Health CareAdultBirth RateCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.Databases, FactualFemaleHumansPopulation SurveillancePregnancyPregnancy RateReproductive Techniques, AssistedTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeUnited StatesAssisted reproductive technologycross-border reproductive caregestational carriersoocyte donationpreimplantation genetic diagnosis

Identifiers

PMID28916332
PMCPMC11286221
OpenAlexW2756198887

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.