ArticleF&S reports2023
Validation of prognosis-based in vitro fertilization grant selection criteria.
Article in F&S reports, 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
Objective: To validate a prognosis-based scoring system for in vitro fertilization (IVF) grant allocation. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: A 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation that awards donated IVF cycles and grants to those with demonstrated financial need. In contrast to lottery-based or subjective allocation systems, applications are scored according to medical prognostic criteria in addition to personal characteristics. Patients: Grant recipients from 2015 to 2019. Interventions: None. Main outcome measures: Live birth rate (LBR) and cumulative LBR (CLBR) among grant recipients were compared with 2019 Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) national averages. Results: A total of 435 applications were reviewed, with 59 grants awarded for 51 autologous IVF cycles, 6 donor oocyte cycles, and 2 gestational carrier cycles, resulting in 39 live births after initial embryo transfer (LBR 61.9%) and 43 CLBRs (CLBR 72.9%). Among autologous cycles, the mean (±SD=3.9 years) age was 31.8 years, and LBR and CLBR were 62.8% and 68.6% vs. 28.2% and 37.1% among all autologous SART cycles, respectively. A subanalysis of grant recipients aged <35 years (n=39) revealed LBR and CLBR of 66.7% and 74.4% vs. 40.7% and 47.8% among autologous SART cycles aged <35 years, respectively. Conclusions: A scoring system incorporating medical criteria identified IVF grant applicants with a high likelihood of achieving a LB. Although most IVF grant programs select recipients through a lottery or personal characteristics, a prognosis-based scoring system should be considered to maximize LBR in a limited resource setting.
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.