Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36175208›Full record

ArticleFertility and sterility2022

A SART data cost-effectiveness analysis of planned oocyte cryopreservation versus in vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy considering ideal family size.

Jennifer B Bakkensen, Kerry S J Flannagan, Sunni L Mumford, Anne P Hutchinson, Elaine O Cheung, Patricia I Moreno, Neil Jordan, Eve C Feinberg, Kara N Goldman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Fertility and sterility, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Elective Egg Freezing for Non-Medical Reasons (Scientific Impact Paper No. 63, 2026 Second Edition).BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Examining reasons that patients discard cryopreserved oocytes.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
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.

Jennifer B BakkensenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. Electronic address: jennifer.bakkensen@northwestern.edu.
Kerry S J FlannaganEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland; Kelly Government Solutions, Rockville, Maryland.
Sunni L MumfordEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland; Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Anne P HutchinsonDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois; Shady Grove Fertility, Rockville, MD.
Elaine O CheungDepartment of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
Patricia I MorenoDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida.
Neil JordanDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Mental Health Services & Policy Program, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
Eve C FeinbergDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
Kara N GoldmanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.

Funding

Patient Activation and Palliative Care among Hispanics/Latinos with Metastatic CancerK01CA258955 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI MORENO, PATRICIA INGRID · 2021 to 2025
$834k
Intramural NIH HHS Z99 HD999999NCI NIH HHS K01 CA258955
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine the cost-effectiveness of planned oocyte cryopreservation (OC) as a strategy for delayed childbearing to achieve 1 or 2 live births (LB) compared with in vitro fertilization (IVF) and preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) at advanced reproductive age.

designDecision tree model with sensitivity analyses using data from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinical Outcome Reporting System and other clinical sources.

settingNot applicable. PATIENT(S): A data-driven simulated cohort of patients desiring delayed childbearing with an ideal family size of 1 or 2 LB. INTERVENTION(S): Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Probability of achieving ≥1 or 2 LB, average and maximum cost per patient, cost per percentage point increase in chance of LB, and population-level cost/LB. RESULT(S): For those desiring 1 LB, planned OC at age 33 with warming at age 43 decreased the average total cost per patient from $62,308 to $30,333 and increased the likelihood of LB from 50% to 73% when compared with no OC with up to 3 cycles of IVF/PGT-A at age 43. For those desiring 2 LB, 2 cycles of OC at age 33 and warming at age 40 yielded the lowest cost per patient and highest likelihood of achieving 2 LB ($51,250 and 77%, respectively) when compared withpursuing only 1 cycle of OC ($75,373 and 61%, respectively), no OC and IVF/PGT-A with embryo banking ($79,728 and 48%, respectively), or no OC and IVF/PGT-A without embryo banking ($79,057 and 19%, respectively). Sensitivity analyses showed that OC remained cost-effective across a wide range of ages at cryopreservation. For 1 LB, OC achieved the highest likelihood of success when pursued before age 32 and remained more effective than IVF/PGT-A when pursued before age 39, and for 2 LB, 2 cycles of OC achieved the highest likelihood of success when pursued before age 31 and remained more effective than IVF/PGT-A when pursued before age 39. CONCLUSION(S): Among patients planning to postpone childbearing, OC is cost-effective and increases the odds of achieving 1 or 2 LB when compared with IVF/PGT-A at a more advanced reproductive age.

Indexed as

Preimplantation DiagnosisAneuploidyCost-Benefit AnalysisCryopreservationFamily CharacteristicsFemaleFertilization in VitroGenetic TestingHumansLive BirthOocytesPregnancyRetrospective StudiesAssisted reproductive technology (ART)cost-effectivenessdelayed childbearingfertility preservationoocyte cryopreservation

Identifiers

PMID36175208
PMCPMC9613595

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.