Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37339780›Full record

SynthesisHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2023

How common is natural conception in women who have had a livebirth via assisted reproductive technology? Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Annette Thwaites, Jennifer Hall, Geraldine Barrett, Judith Stephenson

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Annette ThwaitesSexual and Reproductive Health, Institute of Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5799-1955
Jennifer HallSexual and Reproductive Health, Institute of Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2084-9568
Geraldine BarrettSexual and Reproductive Health, Institute of Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9738-1051
Judith StephensonSexual and Reproductive Health, Institute of Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8852-0881
University College London · GB

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

study questionWhat is the proportion of women who experience natural conception after a livebirth via assisted reproductive technology (ART)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Current evidence suggests that natural conception pregnancy may occur in at least one in five women after having a baby via IVF or ICSI. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: It is widely known that some women having babies via ART go on to conceive naturally. This reproductive history is of media interest and often described as 'miracle' pregnancies. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A systematic review with meta-analysis was carried out. Ovid Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO were searched until 24 September 2021 for English language, human studies from 1980. Search terms were used for the concepts of natural conception pregnancy, assisted reproduction, and livebirth. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,

methodsThe inclusion criterion was studies with an outcome measure of the proportion of women experiencing natural conception pregnancy after an ART livebirth. Quality of studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme cohort study checklist or AXIS Appraisal tool for cross-sectional studies, and a risk of bias assessment was carried out. No studies were excluded based on quality. Random-effects meta-analyses were adopted to produce a pooled effect estimate of the proportion of natural conception pregnancy after ART livebirth. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 1108 distinct studies were identified, resulting in 54 studies after screening by title and abstract. Eleven studies including 5180 women were selected for this review. The included studies were mostly of moderate quality with a maximum follow-up period ranging from 2 to 15 years. Four studies reported natural conception livebirths which were used as known underestimates of natural conception pregnancies. The pooled estimate for the proportion of women having natural conception pregnancies after ART livebirth was 0.20 (95% CI, 0.17-0.22). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The studies varied widely according to methodology, population, cause of subfertility, type and outcome of fertility treatment, and length of follow-up, leading to potential bias relating to confounding, selection bias, and missing data. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE

findingsCurrent evidence suggests that contrary to widely held views, natural conception pregnancy after ART livebirth is far from rare. National, data-linked studies are needed to provide more accurate estimates of this incidence and analysis of associated factors and trends over time to facilitate tailored counselling of couples considering further ART. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This work was conducted as part of an academic clinical fellowship awarded to AT by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). NIHR has had no input into the study design, data collection, and analysis, nor the writing of this study. No authors have any conflicts of interest. REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO (CRD42022322627).

Indexed as

FertilizationReproductive Techniques, AssistedCohort StudiesCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleFertilization in VitroHumansPregnancyPregnancy RateARTsICSIinfertilityIVFlive birthmeta-analysissystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37339780
PMCPMC10391314
OpenAlexW4381469647

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.