ArticleHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2021
Trends in time-to-pregnancy in the USA: 2002 to 2017.
Article in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- A narrative review of the gut microbiota-testis axis: mechanisms and implications for male reproductive health.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Review
- Preconception Folate Status, Dietary Intake, Supplementation, and Time to Pregnancy Among Women in a Premarital Health Examination Cohort.Nutrients · 2026Article
- Reliability of Cycle Applications for Pregnancy Planning and Contraception: A Systematic Review.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2025Review
- Measuring non-events: infertility estimation using cross-sectional, population-based data from four countries in sub-Saharan Africa.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- What is driving the global decline of human fertility? Need for a multidisciplinary approach to the underlying mechanisms.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2024Review
- Hang up your cleats and hope for the best? A cross-sectional study of five health domains in retired elite female rugby players.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2024Article
- Highly Purified Human Menopausal Gonadotropin (HP-hMG) Versus Recombinant Follicle-Stimulating Hormone (rFSH) for Controlled Ovarian Stimulation in US Predicted High-Responder Patients: A Cost-Comparison Analysis.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2023Article
- Optimizing the "Time to pregnancy" in women with multiple sclerosis: the OPTIMUS Delphi survey.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- Statins and Pregnancy - New FDA Recommendations.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
study questionHas there been there a temporal change in time-to-pregnancy (TTP) in the USA. SUMMARY ANSWER: Overall, TTP was stable over time, but a longer TTP for women over 30 and parous women was identified. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Fertility rates in the USA have declined over the past several years. Although these trends have been attributed to changing reproductive intentions, it is unclear whether declining fecundity (the biologic ability to reproduce measured by TTP in the current report) may also play a role. Indeed, trends based on declining sperm quality and higher utilisation of infertility treatment suggest fecundity may be falling. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This cross-sectional survey data from the National Survey of Family Growth was administered from 2002 to 2017. The surveys are based on nationally representative samples of reproductive-aged women in the USA. Interviews were conducted in person or through computer-assisted self-administration of sensitive questions. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,
methodsThe study included women who self-reported time spent trying to become pregnant allowing utilisation of the current duration approach to estimate the total duration of pregnancy attempt (i.e. TTP). In all, 1202 participants were analysed over each study period. To estimate a TTP distribution overall and by parity, we used a piecewise constant proportional hazards model that accounts for digit preference. Accelerated-failure-time regression models, which were weighted to account for the sampling design, were used to estimate time ratios (TRs). Models were adjusted for age, BMI, race, education, relationship status, parity, pelvic inflammatory disease treatment and any reproductive problems. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Of the participants analysed, the average age was 31.8 and BMI was 28.6, which was similar across the survey periods. Relationship status was the only demographic characteristic that changed over time. All other variables remained constant across the study periods. Overall, TRs comparing TTP between 2002 and 2017 increased slightly (TR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.99, 1.04). When stratified by parity, parous women had a longer TTP over the later years of the study (TR: 1.04, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.06). TTP remained constant for nulliparous women. Similarly, TTP also increased over time for women over age thirty (TR: 1.02, 1.00, 1.05) but not for women under age thirty. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Small changes in data collection over time may have impacted the findings. We accounted for this in sensitivity analyses using imputed data. Overall, TRs were slightly attenuated using the imputed data, but represented similar patterns to the original data. Results for parous women and women over 30 remained consistent in the sensitivity analyses. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE
findingsConsistent with reports of falling fertility rates and sperm counts, this study suggests parous and older couples in the USA may be taking longer to become pregnant. Although trends were suggestive of a small overall increase in TTP, particularly for parous women and women over age thirty, additional data are needed to attempt to understand these trends given the societal, economic and public health implications related to fecundity. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Funding was provided by National Institutes of Health grant R03HD097287 to A.C.M. There are no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.
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.