Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33238297›Full record

ReviewHuman reproduction update2021

IVF and other ART in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic landscape analysis.

Tendai M Chiware, Nathalie Vermeulen, Karel Blondeel, Roy Farquharson, James Kiarie, Kersti Lundin, Thabo Christopher Matsaseng, Willem Ombelet, Igor Toskin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Human reproduction update, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 86 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
86citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

86 citing papers in PubMed, 9 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. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

26 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

9 authors.

Tendai M ChiwareDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of Vermont Medical Center, Burlington, VT, USA.
Nathalie VermeulenEuropean Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, Central Office, Grimbergen, Belgium.
Karel BlondeelDepartment of Reproductive Health and Research, UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Roy FarquharsonEuropean Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, Central Office, Grimbergen, Belgium.
James KiarieDepartment of Reproductive Health and Research, UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Kersti LundinEuropean Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, Central Office, Grimbergen, Belgium.
Thabo Christopher MatsasengDepartment of Reproductive Health and Research, UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Willem OmbeletFaculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, Hasselt University, Hasselt 3500, Belgium.
Igor ToskinDepartment of Reproductive Health and Research, UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInfertility affects 48.5 million couples worldwide with a prevalence estimated at 3.5-16.7% in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), and as high as 30-40% in Sub-Saharan Africa. ART services are not accessible to the majority of these infertile couples due to the high cost of treatments in addition to cultural, religious and legal barriers. Infertility and childlessness, particularly in LMIC, have devastating consequences, which has resulted in considerable interest in developing affordable IVF procedures. However, there is a paucity of evidence on the safety, efficiency and ability to replicate techniques under different field conditions, and how to integrate more affordable ART options into existing infrastructures. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: This review was performed to investigate the current availability of IVF in LMIC and which other ART options are under development. This work will unfold the landscape of available and potential ART services in LMIC and is a key element in positioning infertility more broadly in the Global Public Health Agenda. SEARCH

methodsA systematic literature search was performed of articles and gray literature on IVF and other ART options in LMIC published between January 2010 and January 2020. We selected studies on IVF and other ART treatments for infertile couples of reproductive age (18-44 years) from LMIC. The review was limited to articles published after 2010, based on the recent evolution in the field of ART practices in LMIC over the last decade. Citations from high-income countries, including data prior to 2010 and focusing on specialized ART procedures, were excluded. The literature search included PubMed, Popline, CINHAL, EMBASE and Global Index Medicus. No restrictions were applied with regard to study design or language. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts, and extracted data. A search for gray literature was performed using the 'Google' search engine and specific databases (worldcat.org, greylit.org). In addition, the reference lists of included studies were assessed. OUTCOMES: The search of the electronic databases yielded 3769 citations. After review of the titles and abstracts, 283 studies were included. The full texts were reviewed and a further 199 articles were excluded. The gray literature search yielded 586 citations, most of which were excluded after screening the title, and the remaining documents were excluded after full-text assessment due to duplicate entries, not from LMIC, not relevant or no access to the full document. Eighty-four citations were included as part of the review and separated into regions. The majority of the studies were observational and qualitative studies. In general, ART services are available and described in several LMIC, ranging from advanced techniques in China to basic introduction of IVF in some African countries. Efforts to provide affordable ART treatments are described in feasibility studies and efficacy studies; however, most citations were of low to very low quality. We found no studies from LMIC reporting the implementation of low-cost ART that is effective, accessible and affordable to most of those in need of the services. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: The World Health Organization is in a unique position to provide much needed guidance for infertility management in LMIC. This review provides insight into the landscape of ART in LMIC in various regions worldwide, which will guide efforts to improve the availability, quality, accessibility and acceptability of biomedical infertility care, including ART in these countries.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesInfertilityAdolescentAdultFertilization in VitroHumansYoung Adultaccessible ARTaffordable ARTARTfertility carefertility coverageinfertilityIVFlow- and middle-income countries

Identifiers

PMID33238297
PMCPMC7903111

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.