ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2021
Optimizing the control group for evaluating ART outcomes: can outpatient claims data yield a better control group?
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ovulation induction and subfertile untreated conception groups offer improved options for interpreting risks associated with ART.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2024Article
- Polycystic ovary syndrome and risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes: a registry linkage study from Massachusetts.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2022Observational
- Article
- Pregnancy outcomes among women with endometriosis and fibroids: registry linkage study in Massachusetts.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2022Article
- Assisted reproductive technology treatment increases obstetric and neonatal risks over that of the underlying infertility diagnosis.Fertility and sterility · 2022Article
- Influence of Placental Abnormalities and Pregnancy-Induced Hypertension in Prematurity Associated with Various Assisted Reproductive Technology Techniques.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe previously developed a subfertile comparison group with which to compare outcomes of assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment. In this study, we evaluated whether insurance claims data in the Massachusetts All Payers Claims Database (APCD) defined a more appropriate comparison group.
methodsWe used Massachusetts vital records of women who delivered between 2013 and 2017 on whom APCD data were available. ART deliveries were those linked to a national ART database. Deliveries were subfertile if fertility treatment was marked on the birth certificate, had prior hospitalization with ICD code for infertility, or prior fertility treatment. An infertile group included women with an APCD outpatient or inpatient ICD 9/10 infertility code prior to delivery. Fertile deliveries were none of the above. Demographics, health risks, and obstetric outcomes were compared among groups. Multivariable generalized estimating equations were used to calculate adjusted relative risk (aRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).
resultsThere were 70,726 fertile, 4,763 subfertile, 11,970 infertile, and 7,689 ART-treated deliveries. Only 3,297 deliveries were identified as both subfertile and infertile. Both subfertile and infertile were older, and had more education, chronic hypertension, and diabetes than the fertile group and less than the ART-treated group. Prematurity (aRR = 1.15-1.17) and birthweight (aRR = 1.10-1.21) were increased in all groups compared with the fertile group.
conclusionAlthough the APCD allowed identification of more women than the previously defined subfertile categorization and allowed us to remove previously unidentified infertile women from the fertile group, it is not clear that it offered a clinically significantly improved comparison group.
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.