ArticleHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2024
Applying a simplified economic evaluation approach to evaluate infertility treatments in clinical practice.
Article in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2024. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of different cetrorelix doses in the luteal phase for preventing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: A cross-sectional study.International journal of reproductive biomedicine · 2026Article
- Microsimulation reveals that medically assisted reproduction is unlikely to compensate for cohort fertility decline due to increasing maternal ages.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of time-lapse monitoring with or without the use of embryo selection software compared to routine incubation and selection.Human reproduction open · 2026Article
- FSH receptor N680S genotype-guided gonadotropin choice increases cumulative pregnancy and live birth rates afterFrontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
IVF is the backbone of infertility treatment, but due to its costs, it is not affordable for everyone. The cost of IVF is further escalated by interventions added to the routine treatment, which are claimed to boost pregnancy rates, so-called add-ons. Consequently, it is critical to offset the increased costs of an intervention against a potentially higher benefit. Here, we propose using a simplified framework considering the cost of a standard IVF procedure to create one live-born baby as a benchmark for the cost-effectiveness of other fertility treatments, add-ons inclusive. This framework is a simplified approach to a formal economic evaluation, enabling a rapid assessment of cost effectiveness in clinical settings. For a 30-year-old woman, assuming a 44.6% cumulative live birth rate and a cost of $12 000 per complete cycle, the cost to create one live-born baby would be ∼$27 000 (i.e. willingness to pay). Under this concept, the decision whether to accept or reject a new treatment depends from an economic perspective on the incremental cost per additional live birth from the new treatment/add-on, with the $27 000 per live-born baby as a reference threshold. This threshold can vary with women's age, and other factors such as the economic perspective and risk of side effects can play a role. If a new add-on or treatment costs >$27 000 per live birth, it might be more rational to invest in a new IVF cycle rather than spending on the add-on. With the increasing number of novel technologies in IVF and the lack of a rapid approach to evaluate their cost-effectiveness, this simplified framework will help with a more objective assessment of the cost-effectiveness of infertility treatments, including add-ons.
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.