SynthesisHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2026
Family planning of infertile couples: a systematic review of intentions regarding parenthood and return to ART.
Synthesis in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2026. 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.
- From a single child to family planning: determinants of returning to ART to build the desired family in a monocentric Italian cohort.Human reproduction open · 2026Article
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
Abstract
study questionWhat motivations and barriers influence family planning decisions among infertile individuals? SUMMARY ANSWER: In studying the family planning of infertile couples, this review found that a significant gap persists between desired and achieved family size. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: While ART has traditionally focused on live birth rate (LBR) as a primary success parameter, growing attention has been paid to whether treatments help couples achieve their desired family size. Evidence suggests that many infertile couples do not return to ART for subsequent children, despite having cryopreserved embryos available. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This review was conducted as a systematic review following PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search strategy was developed and implemented across PubMed and Embase databases, covering studies published in English up to May 2025. The search combined free text terms and MeSH/Emtree terms related to 'infertility' and 'family planning'. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,
methodsWe included observational studies reporting outcomes related to family size, return to ART, or intentions for subsequent children. Two reviewers independently performed screening, data extraction, and quality assessment using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Of 2495 screened records, 9 studies were included. Across contexts, infertile couples consistently reported smaller family sizes compared to fertile ones. Return rates to ART for a second child ranged from 25 to 50%, even among those with cryopreserved embryos. Factors associated with return included younger age, availability of embryos, and previous treatment characteristics. However, emotional, financial, and social burdens often discouraged further ART use. Success rates for second ART pregnancies varied, with cumulative LBRs between 38 and 88%, depending on treatment strategy and prior history. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Scarcity of evidence and high heterogeneity across studies, including differences in design, populations, outcomes, and type of ART, may have limited comparability of the studies. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE
findingsThe low return rate to ART highlights unmet needs in post-treatment support and counselling. Future research should explore the psychosocial, economic, and systemic barriers that prevent couples from pursuing their reproductive goals, enabling more patient-centred care in reproductive medicine. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Open access funding was provided by Università degli Studi di Milano within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. This study was in part supported by the Italian Ministry of Health-Current Research IRCCS. E.S. reports receiving grants from Ferring and honoraria for lectures from Merck-Serono, IBSA, and Gedeon-Richter. J.D. has received consulting fees from ObsEva, Gedeon Richter, and Theramex and was a member of the scientific advisory board of ObsEva and Preglem until 2023. L.L.P. reports participation in a training course sponsored by Gedeon Richter, during which she received medical writing assistance for this paper as part of the training course. The remaining authors declare no competing interests. REGISTRATION NUMBER: n/a.
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.