ArticleBMC women's health2022
The impact of body mass index on laboratory, clinical outcomes and treatment costs in assisted reproduction: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC women's health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Empty Follicle Syndrome: Current Therapeutic Approaches and the Role of Triggering Agents in Assisted Reproductive Technology.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Polycystic ovary syndrome and excessive body weight impact independently and synergically on fertility treatment outcomes.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2025Article
- Metabolic state and female fertility in ART cycles: a summary of current advances.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of the body mass index (BMI) on laboratory, clinical outcomes and treatment costs of assisted reproduction, as there are still controversial and inconclusive studies on this subject.
methodsThis research was retrospective cohort study, including women undergoing assisted reproduction in a Reproductive Medicine Center between 2013 and 2020. The participants were divided into groups according to BMI (kg/m
resultsAs higher the BMI, higher was the proportion of canceled IVF cycles (G1 (6.9%) vs. G2 (7.8%) vs. G3 (10.4%), p = 0.002) and gonadotropin's total dose (IU) and treatment costs (G1 (1685 ± 595, U$ 683,02) vs. G2 (1779 ± 610, U$ 721,13) vs. G3 (1805 ± 563, U$ 764,09), p = 0.001). A greater number of mature oocytes was observed in G1 and G2 (6 [6.4-7.0] vs. 6 [5.6-6.6] vs. 4 [4.6-6.7], p = 0.011), which was not found in oocyte maturity rate (p = 0.877). A significant linear tendency (p = 0.042) was found in cumulative pregnancy rates, pointing to worse clinical outcomes in overweight and obese patients.
conclusionThese findings highlight the importance of considering the higher treatment costs for these patients, beyond all the well-known risks regarding weight excess, fertility, and pregnancy, before starting IVF treatments.
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.