ArticleFertility and sterility2024
Neighborhood deprivation in relation to ovarian reserve and outcomes of ovarian stimulation among oocyte donors.
Article in Fertility and sterility, 2024. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo study the relationship between neighborhood deprivation index (NDI) and markers of ovarian reserve and outcomes of controlled ovarian stimulation among young, healthy oocyte donors.
designRetrospective cohort study. PATIENTS: A total of 547 oocyte donors who underwent 905 oocyte retrieval cycles (2008-2020) at a private fertility center in Sandy Springs, Georgia, United States.
interventionsNeighborhood deprivation index was calculated using principal component analysis applied to census-level measures of poverty, employment, household composition, and public assistance, which was then standardized and linked to donor information on the basis of donor residence.
main outcome measuresMarkers of ovarian reserve, including antral follicle count (AFC) and antimüllerian hormone (AMH) levels, and outcomes of controlled ovarian stimulation including number of total and mature oocytes retrieved and ovarian sensitivity index (OSI) (defined as the number of oocytes retrieved/total gonadotropin dose × 1,000). Multivariable generalized estimating equations with Poisson and normal distribution were used to model the relationship between NDI and outcome measures adjusting for age, body mass index, and year of retrieval.
resultsThe mean (SD) age of donors was 25.0 (2.8) years and 29% of the donors were racial or ethnic minorities. There were no associations between donor NDI and ovarian reserve markers. For every interquartile range increase in NDI, there was a reduction of -1.5% (95% confidence interval: -5.3% to 2.4%) in total oocytes retrieved although the effect estimate was imprecise. Associations of NDI with a number of mature oocytes retrieved and OSI were in a similar direction. We observed evidence for effect modification of the NDI and OSI association by donor race. There was a suggestive positive association between NDI and OSI in Black donors but no association in White donors.
conclusionIn this cohort of young, healthy, racially diverse oocyte donors, we found little evidence of associations between NDI and markers of ovarian reserve or outcomes of ovarian stimulation.
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.