ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2024
Survey of
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neurodevelopmental status of children aged 12 to 60 months conceived with artificial oocyte activation in a Cross-Sectional study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Impact of insurance coverage on access to assisted reproductive technology: A nationwide survey in Japan (the IZANAMI project).The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research · 2025Article
- Utilization of Fertility Treatment in Japan During the First Year of Insurance Coverage: Analysis of Real-World Health Claims Data.Reproductive medicine and biologyArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To identify any correlations between evidence levels, adoption rates, and additional costs of Design: Online survey. Subjects: The survey was conducted in 621 assisted reproductive technology-registered facilities that are members of the Japanese Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology from December 22, 2021, to February 13, 2022. Exposure: The survey included details regarding the specific add-on modalities employed and their associated costs; inquiries pertained to the fertility healthcare infrastructure in Japan before the implementation of the National Health Insurance scheme. Main outcome measures: The correlation between the adoption rate and cost of IVF add-ons and their evidence levels were analyzed. The evidence level of the add-on treatments was classified into Green, Amber, and Red categories based on the United Kingdom's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and Cochrane systematic reviews. Results: A total of 438 eligible responses were analyzed, with clinics constituting 70.9% of the respondents' facilities. A total of 18 add-ons were assessed, and 96.5% (423/438) of facilities used at least one add-on. A positive correlation of the adoption rate and an inverse correlation of the cost with the evidence level of the IVF add-on treatment were observed (not significant). Outpatient clinics, defined as medical facilities with no beds, had a significantly higher adoption rate (Amber, 65.7%; Red, 52.0%) of add-ons than other facilities, regardless of the evidence rating, although the costs were similar across all site attributes. Conclusion: Accumulating evidence on the efficacy and safety of add-ons will lead to the development of medical care with a high-cost benefit, as an increase in the adoption rate and a decrease in cost are expected when limiting to medical care with a high level of evidence.
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.