ArticleJournal of human reproductive sciences2021
ISAR Consensus Guidelines on Add-Ons Treatment in
Article in Journal of human reproductive sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The landscape of assisted reproductive technology access in India.Reproduction & fertility · 2024Article
- Embryologist staffing in assisted reproductive technology laboratories: An international comparative review.Reproductive medicine and biologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
study questionWhat are the good practices for the use of ADD-ON Treatments in IVF cycles in INDIA? WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN: Add on treatments in IVF are procedures and technologies which are offered to patients in hope of improving the success rates. A lot of add on treatments exist; most of them have limited evidence and data for the Indian patient population is miniscule. These interventions may have limited effects, so it is imperative that any new technology that is offered is evaluated properly and has enough evidence to suggest that it is safe and effective. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: This is the report of a 2-day consensus meeting where two moderators were assigned to a group of experts to collate information on Add on treatments in IVF in INDIA. This meeting utilised surveys, available scientific evidence and personal laboratory experience into various presentations by experts on pre-decided specific topics. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING
methodsExpert professionals from ISAR representing clinical and embryology fields. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The report is divided in various components including the health of the Offspring, the various ADD ons available to an ART center, consensus points for each technology & qualifications and trainings for embryologists, the report and recommendations of the expert panel reflect the discussion on each of the topics and try to lay down good practice points for labs to follow. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: The recommendations are solely based on expert opinion. Future availability of data may warrant an update of the same. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE
findingsThese guidelines can help labs across the country to standardise their ART services and improve clinical outcomes, it will also motivate clinics to collect data and report the use of Add ons to the national registry. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The consensus meeting and writing of the paper was supported by funds from CooperSurgical India.
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.