ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2019
Body mass index restrictions in fertility treatment: a national survey of OB/GYN subspecialists.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Structural weight stigma in healthcare toward preconception, pregnant, and postpartum women: A systematic review.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2025Pooled it
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of pregnancy outcomes in women with polycystic ovary syndrome.Nature communications · 2024Pooled it
- Association between markers of female adiposity and live birth among patients undergoing fertility treatment or attempting unassisted conception.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2025Trial
- Physician views on ethically challenging clinical scenarios: a society for reproductive endocrinology and infertility member survey.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Article
- "You don't treat your skinny patients like this": a qualitative study of fertility care experiences among women with larger bodies and infertility.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2026Article
- Beyond the scale: navigating BMI, IVF candidacy, and retrieval settings through provider perspectives.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Article
- A multidisciplinary approach to weight management and reproductive care: a retrospective cohort study on weight loss through personalized and patient-centered care.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2025Article
- How Weight Bias and Stigma Undermine Healthcare Access and Utilization.Current obesity reports · 2025Review
- The impact of obesity on reproductive health and metabolism in reproductive-age females.Fertility and sterility · 2024Review
- The Challenge of Weight Stigma for Women in the Preconception Period: Workshop Recommendations for Action from the 5th European Conference on Preconception Health and Care.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Elevated body mass index in modified natural cycle frozen euploid embryo transfers is not associated with live birth rate.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo explore the attitudes of reproductive endocrinology and infertility (REI) and maternal-fetal medicine (MFM) subspecialists regarding the necessity and appropriateness of body mass index (BMI) cutoffs for women seeking fertility treatment.
methodsMembers of the Society for Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility (SREI) and the Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine (SMFM) were invited to participate in a survey querying their knowledge of existing institutional or clinic BMI policies and personal opinions regarding upper and lower BMI cutoffs for a range of fertility treatments, including oral ovulation agents, gonadotropins, and in vitro fertilization.
resultsRespondents included 398 MFMs and 201 REIs. The majority of REI and MFM providers agreed with upper limit BMI cutoffs (72.5% vs 68.2%, p = 0.29), but REIs were twice as likely to support lower limit BMI restrictions compared to MFMs (56.2% vs 28.4%, p < 0.0001). Those who supported upper BMI restrictions were more likely to be female and report existing institutional BMI cutoffs. The majority of respondents (99.3%) believed that an official statement to guide clinicians should be issued by a national professional organization.
conclusionsAlthough practice patterns widely vary, the majority of REIs and MFMs believe that there should be a BMI cutoff above which women should not be offered immediate fertility treatment. Furthermore, there is a reported need for a written statement by a national professional organization to guide clinical practice and to ensure that OB/GYN subspecialists are providing consistent, fair, and safe recommendations to infertile women at the extremes of BMI.
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.