ReviewArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2025
Re-embarking in ART while still breastfeeding: an unresolved question.
Review in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Infertile women may request to embark on a new course of Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) in pursuit of a second child while still breastfeeding their first child. Breastfeeding is a time of profound hormonal changes that may interfere with ovarian physiology and uterine receptivity. Prolactin and oxytocin can mediate a plethora of potential detrimental effects. However, robust evidence to advise in favor or against ART during breastfeeding is lacking. In this narrative review, we reviewed the literature with the intent to shed light on this neglected issue. Possible adverse effects on ART success emerged for ovulatory mechanisms, folliculogenesis, uterine contractions, uterine peristalsis, and early embryo development. A negative impact of exogeneous hormones on infant health might be considered only for stimulation cycles. Overall, most concerns can be claimed for the clinical setting of ovarian stimulation, followed by the one of embryo transfer in a natural cycle and, finally, by the embryo transfer in a hormone replacement treatment preparation. However, in general, it seems wise to wait for breastfeeding to be discontinue before re-embarking on IVF, also considering that a too short interpregnancy interval may be deleterious to pregnancy outcomes. On the other hand, one must also recognize that available evidence is insufficient to deny access to treatments for women requesting earlier access. These women must be informed regarding the non-fully reassuring 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.