SynthesisPloS one2026
Economic evaluation of sterilization reversal in infertility treatment: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Economic evaluation of sterilization reversal in infertility treatment: A systematic review.PloS one · 2026Pooled it
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
objectivesAlthough sterilization is intended to be permanent, some individuals later seek fertility. In such cases, options can be limited and financially burdensome. This review evaluated the cost-effectiveness of sterilization reversal surgery in previously sterilized individuals.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus from inception in 1946 through December 2025, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance. We included studies that analyzed cost-effectiveness or reported the costs of sterilization reversal in males (vasectomy reversal) or females (tubal anastomosis), with assisted reproductive technologies as comparators. Study quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 checklist. Two authors independently screened each study to reduce bias. All costs per outcome were converted to 2024 United States dollars for analysis and comparisons.
resultsOf 1628 identified articles, 24 studies met the eligibility criteria. Almost all examined populations in high-income countries, such as the United States, the Netherlands, and Singapore. Thirteen studies evaluated tubal anastomosis, and eleven evaluated vasectomy reversal. Most studies reported lower total costs for sterilization reversal than for assisted reproductive technologies, with comparable outcomes. Vasectomy reversal was preferred for male patients irrespective of the female partner's age, whereas tubal anastomosis was preferred for female patients aged 40 years or younger. For older patients, assisted reproductive technologies were more cost-effective.
conclusionsTubal anastomosis and vasectomy reversal may be economically advantageous compared with assisted reproductive technologies for infertility due to prior sterilization. However, societal factors, including a country's socioeconomic context and policy feasibility, should be considered.
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.