Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29291411›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of obstetrics and gynecology2018

Assisted reproductive technology with donor sperm: national trends and perinatal outcomes.

Sabrina A Gerkowicz, Sara B Crawford, Heather S Hipp, Sheree L Boulet, Dmitry M Kissin, Jennifer F Kawwass

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Alpha Test of the Donor Conception Tool to Empower Parental Telling and Talking.Journal of obstetric, gynecologic, and neonatal nursing : JOGNN · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sabrina A GerkowiczDivision of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA. Electronic address: sgerkowicz@gmail.com.
Sara B CrawfordDivision of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
Heather S HippDivision of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA.
Sheree L BouletDivision of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
Dmitry M KissinDivision of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
Jennifer F KawwassDivision of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion · USEmory University · USCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · US

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInformation regarding the use of donor sperm in assisted reproductive technology, as well as subsequent treatment and perinatal outcomes, remains limited. Outcome data would aid patient counseling and clinical decision making.

objectivesThe objectives of the study were to report national trends in donor sperm utilization and live birth rates of donor sperm-assisted reproductive technology cycles in the United States and to compare assisted reproductive technology treatment and perinatal outcomes between cycles using donor and nondonor sperm. We hypothesize these outcomes to be comparable between donor and nondonor sperm cycles. STUDY

designThis was a retrospective cohort study using data from all US fertility centers reporting to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance System, accounting for ∼98% of assisted reproductive technology cycles (definition excludes intrauterine insemination). The number and percentage of assisted reproductive technology cycles using donor sperm and rates of pregnancy, live birth, preterm birth (<37 weeks), and low birthweight (<2500 g) were the primary outcomes measured. Treatments assessed include use of donor vs nondonor sperm. The trends analysis included all banking and fresh assisted reproductive technology cycles using donor and autologous oocytes performed between 1996 and 2014 (n = 1,710,034). The outcomes analysis was restricted to include only fresh autologous cycles performed between 2010 and 2014 (n = 437,569) to focus on cycles with a potential outcome and cycles reflective of current practice, thereby improving the clinical relevance. Cycles canceled prior to retrieval were excluded. Statistical analysis included linear regression to explore polynomial trends and log-binomial regression to estimate relative risk for outcomes among cycles using donor and nondonor sperm.

resultsOf all banking and fresh donor and autologous oocyte assisted reproductive technology cycles performed between 1996 and 2014, 74,892 (4.4%) used donor sperm. In 2014, 7351 assisted reproductive technology cycles using donor sperm were performed, as compared with 1763 in 1996 (6.2% vs 3.8% of all cycles). Among all autologous oocyte cycles performed between 2010 and 2014, the live birth rate was lower for donor sperm (27.9%) than nondonor sperm cycles (32.5%); however, after adjustment for maternal age, donor sperm use was associated with an increased likelihood of live birth (adjusted relative risk, 1.06, 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.10). Per transfer, there was no significant difference in live birth rates for donor vs nondonor sperm (31.9% vs 36.8%; adjusted relative risk, 1.04, 95% confidence interval, 0.998-1.09). Per singleton live birth, there was no significant difference in preterm birth (11.5% vs 11.8%; adjusted relative risk, 0.98, 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.06); however, low birthweight delivery was slightly lower in donor sperm cycles (8.8% vs 9.4%; adjusted relative risk, 0.91, 95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.99).

conclusionDonor sperm use in assisted reproductive technology has increased in the United States, accounting for approximately 6% of all assisted reproductive technology cycles in 2014. Assisted reproductive technology treatment and perinatal outcomes were clinically similar in donor and nondonor sperm cycles.

Indexed as

Reproductive Techniques, AssistedSemenTissue DonorsAdultCohort StudiesDatabases, FactualFemaleHumansInfant, Low Birth WeightInfant, NewbornLive BirthMaleMaternal AgePregnancyPremature BirthRetrospective Studiesdonor spermin vitro fertilizationperinatal outcomesthird party reproduction

Identifiers

PMID29291411
PMCPMC11056969
OpenAlexW2776598352

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.