ArticleFertility and sterility2025
Using national in vitro fertilization registries to validate clinical outcomes after in vitro fertilization covered by health insurance.
Article in Fertility and sterility, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles covered by health insurance using a national commercial claims database and validate key clinical events against national IVF registries.
designRetrospective cohort study. SUBJECTS: US women aged 20-44 years who underwent IVF from 2005-2020 in Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database (CDM). EXPOSURE: Undergoing IVF.
main outcome measuresIn vitro fertilization cycles and rates of pregnancies (inclusive of losses and terminations), live births, and live birth types (e.g., singleton, twin, and triplet or higher-order).
resultsWe identified more than 3,000 IVF cycles in each year from 2005-2020 within CDM. When comparing our rates of clinical outcomes with external benchmark data, the results were similar across all the years of our study. For example, in 2020, the percentages of pregnancies after first embryo transfer were 62.03% (95% confidence interval [CI], 59.48-64.47) in CDM and 64.96% in data from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART). The rates of live birth after first embryo transfer were 44.58% (95% CI, 41.90-47.21) in CDM in 2020 and 46.95% in SART in 2020. The rate of singleton births was 94.17% (95% CI, 92.24-96.10) in CDM in 2020, and this rate was 94.37% in SART in 2020. For twin births, the rates were 5.48% (95% CI, 3.60-7.35) in CDM in 2020 and 5.46% in SART in 2020. The rates of triplet or higher-order births were 0.35% (95% CI, 0.00-0.84) in CDM in 2020 and 0.17% in SART in 2020.
conclusionWe found that CDM can be used to accurately identify IVF cycles covered by insurance and key clinical outcomes such as rates of pregnancies, live births, and live birth types, and our reported rates were similar to national IVF clinical registry data. Our findings support that CDM is a robust data source to conduct research about IVF insurance coverage and can accurately evaluate clinical outcomes resulting from IVF. Policymakers who are considering insurance coverage for IVF can use CDM to model and measure the impact of new or existing policies for IVF insurance coverage.
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.