ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2018
Factors associated with short interpregnancy interval among women treated with in vitro fertilization.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate factors associated with interpregnancy interval (IPI) among women treated with in vitro fertilization (IVF).
methodsWomen with at least two cycles of IVF between 2004 and 2013 were identified from the SART CORS database and grouped by age at first cycle, infertility diagnosis, IVF treatment parameters, and cycle 1 outcome (singleton or multiple live birth or no live birth, length of gestation, and birthweight). The distributions of IPIs (in months, 0-5, 6-11, 12-17, 18-23, and ≥ 24) were compared across these factors. IPI was fit as a function of these factors by a general linear model, separately for singleton and multiple live births and no live births at cycle 1.
resultsThe study included 93,546 women with two consecutive IVF cycles where the first cycle resulted in a clinical intrauterine pregnancy or a live birth. Among women with a live birth in cycle 1, there was a general pattern of longer IPI for younger women compared to older women. Women with a multiple birth waited longer before initiating a second cycle than women with a singleton birth. For women with no live birth in the first cycle, nearly three fourths initiated cycle 2 within 6 months, regardless of their age. Short (0-5 months) IPI was associated with preterm delivery, older maternal age, and use of donor oocytes.
conclusionsAge of the mother, outcome of the first pregnancy, and treatment factors affect the length of the interpregnancy interval. Because short IPI has been associated with poor outcomes, women who are at risk for short IPI should be counseled about these outcome risks.
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.