ArticleF&S reports2025
In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic testing compared with donor sperm and natural conception among male Robertsonian translocation carriers: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Article in F&S reports, 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
Objective: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of reproductive strategies for male carriers of Robertsonian translocations. Design: We designed a model to compare the outcomes and costs of three strategies: in vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic testing for structural rearrangements (IVF PGT-SR), frozen donor sperm intrauterine insemination, and natural conception. The model was built using a Markov process to simulate one year of clinical care (up to 3 cycles of IVF, 6 intrauterine inseminations, or 12 attempts at natural conception), incorporating delays between cycles for adverse outcomes. Subjects: Theoretical cohort of 2,751, an estimate of men aged 15-49 diagnosed with subfertility or nonsurgical sterility that are carriers of the most common Robertsonian translocation (13;14), within couples with fertility intention in one year. Exposure: Reproductive strategy selection (IVF PGT-SR, donor sperm, natural conception). Main Outcome Measures: Outcomes included cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for the parents in addition to secondary outcomes of live births and decreased miscarriages, stillbirths, Trisomy 13 diagnoses, terminations, and neonatal deaths. A willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $100,000/QALY. Results: Compared with natural conception, donor sperm and IVF PGT-SR increased overall live births and decreased miscarriages, stillbirths, Trisomy 13 diagnoses, terminations, and neonatal deaths, albeit at a higher cost. Using donor sperm vs. IVF PGT-SR resulted in cost savings with modest reductions in poor outcomes. Both alternative strategies to natural conception were cost-effective. Donor sperm and IVF PGT-SR yielded incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $2,019 per QALY and $8,469 per QALY compared with natural conception, respectively. Utilizing IVF PGT-SR vs. donor sperm was not cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $722,138 per QALY. However, in sensitivity analysis, IVF PGT-SR became cost-effective over donor sperm when the utility of non-biological progeny was less than 0.99. Conclusion: For male rob(13;14) carriers, mother and offspring outcomes are improved with donor sperm and IVF PGT-SR. Utilizing donor sperm is a cost-effective conception strategy compared with both natural conception and IVF PGT-SR. For individuals strongly preferring biological progeny, IVF PGT-SR is cost-effective over donor sperm.
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.