ArticleJBRA assisted reproduction2023
Survey on the Impact of COVID-19 on the Practice of Assisted Reproduction in Latin America.
Article in JBRA assisted reproduction, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo follow the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on the practice of assisted reproductive technology in centers reporting to the Latin American Registry during 2020.
methodsAn internally validated online survey designed on the Survey Monkey platform with a maximum of 20 closed questions was sent via e-mail or WhatsApp to the clinical director of each center reporting to the Latin American Registry of Assisted Reproduction between July and December 2020.
resultsThe number of centers responding to the survey varied during the six months. The relative contribution of Brazil to all responses was 41.4% to 45%, followed by México (16.2% to 23.8%), Argentina (8.1% to 12.6%), Colombia (7.1% to 8.2%), Chile (3.6% to 6.1%) and Peru (4.0% to 4.9%). Most centers reported stopping activities before July 2020 (81%). COVID-19 related symptoms were a criterion on their own to postpone ovarian stimulation (80.1% to 87.7% of centers). Although in July only 76 of 166 centers (45.8%) performed embryo transfers, by October 104 of 109 centers (95.4%) performed them. In survey 6 (December), 78 of 79 centers (98.7%) that had initially closed had already reopened, although 62.3% (61 of 98 centers) still performed 80% or less of their usual number of ART cycles.
conclusionsMost centers modified their clinical practice and applied specific protocols to screen their staff and patients. Suspicion of COVID-19 delayed treatments. Despite a peak of the pandemic, by December most centers were performing all ART treatments, although the number of cycles remained low compared to pre-pandemic numbers.
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.