ArticleFertility and sterility2025
Comparing gestational carrier with uterine transplantation in uterine-factor infertility: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Article in Fertility and sterility, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the cost-effectiveness of a gestational carrier (GC) to a uterine transplantation (UTX) in the treatment of absolute uterine-factor infertility.
designWe performed a cost-effectiveness analysis using a decision-tree mathematical model comparing a GC with a UTX. SUBJECTS: Published literature was used to derive costs for solid organ transplant, immunosuppression, GC obtainment, in vitro fertilization, preimplantation genetic testing, and frozen embryo transfer (FET). EXPOSURE: Gestational modality: GC or UTX. We assumed graft failures occurred immediately and FETs at least 6 months after transplant.
main outcome measuresThe primary outcomes were costs per live birth, number of children born, and quality-adjusted life years for each gestational modality.
resultsUterine transplantation was more expensive than a GC by $1.4 million with a lower utility by 23.74 quality-adjusted life years using the same average number of children born per 2 FETs. After 10,000 simulated iterations, the GC arm had 2 children born 42% of the time, compared with only 17% of the time in the UTX arm. No children were born 56% of the time in the UTX arm vs. 16% for the GC arm. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity variance of all cost parameters by ±75% ($39,292-$275,044 for GC vs. $390,761-$2,735,329 for UTX) and other input parameters by ±20%, including graft failure (21%-31%) and live birth per embryo transfer (29%-78%), produced the same outcomes in >99% of scenarios simulated, as did variation in immunosuppression time (2-18 months) between delivery and subsequent FET. UTX was no longer absolutely dominated if the probability of a live birth per transfer using UTX increased beyond 85%, startup cost for UTX decreased to <$13,646.28, or GC costs increased to >$359,200.
conclusionOur model suggests that GC use is currently more cost effective than UTX for treating absolute uterine-factor infertility. However, the desire to carry one's own child is an intangible factor not captured in cost analyses, and improvements in UTX success rates or reduced costs may alter these results in the future.
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.