Uterine adenomyosis and in vitro fertilization outcome: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
STUDY QUESTION: Is adenomyosis associated with IVF/ICSI outcome in terms of clinical pregnancy rate? SUMMARY ANSWER: In a meta-analysis of published data, women with adenomyosis had a 28% reduction in the likelihood of clinical pregnancy at IVF/ICSI compared with women without adenomyosis. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Estimates of the effect of adenomyosis on IVF/ICSI outcome are inconsistent. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis were conducted. A Medline search was performed to identify all the comparative studies published from January 1998 to June 2013 in the English language literature on IVF/ICSI outcome in women with and without adenomyosis. Two authors independently performed the literature screening, scrutinized articles of potential interest, selected relevant studies and extracted data. Studies were categorized based on research design. PARTICIPANTS, SETTING, METHODS: Of the 17 articles assessed in detail, 9 were finally selected based on diagnosis of adenomyosis at magnetic resonance imaging or transvaginal ultrasonography. The quality of studies was evaluated by means of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. A total of 1865 women were enrolled in the 9 selected studies, 665 of whom in 4 prospective observational studies, and 1200 in 5 retrospective studies. The dichotomous data for clinical pregnancy and secondary outcomes were expressed as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and were combined in a meta-analysis using the random-effects model. The heterogeneity Cochrane's Q and the I(2) statistics were calculated. Egger's approach to testing the significance of funnel plot asymmetry was also used. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The clinical pregnancy rate achieved after IVF/ICSI was 123/304 (40.5%) women with adenomyosis versus 628/1262 (49.8%) in those without adenomyosis. The RR of clinical pregnancy ranged from 0.37 (95% CI, 0.15-0.92) to 1.20 (95% CI, 0.58-2.45), with a significant heterogeneity among studies (I(2) = 56.8%, P = 0.023). Pooling of the results yielded a common RR of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.55-0.95). A funnel plot showed no indication of asymmetry among studies (Egger's test, P = 0.696). In a meta-regression model, no association was observed between prevalence of endometriosis and the likelihood of clinical pregnancy. Three studies reported the pregnancy rate per cycle. The common RR was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.51-0.98; I(2) = 78.1%, P = 0.010). The RR observed in a study with donated oocytes was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.75-1.08). The number of miscarriages per clinical pregnancy was reported in seven studies. A miscarriage was observed in 77/241 women with adenomyosis (31.9%) and in 97/687 in those without adenomyosis (14.1%). The RR of miscarriage ranged from 0.57 (95% CI, 0.15-2.17) to 18.00 (95% CI, 4.08-79.47) (I(2) = 67.7%, P = 0.005). Pooling of the results yielded a common RR of 2.12 (95% CI, 1.20-3.75). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Qualitative and quantitative heterogeneity among studies was high. At sensitivity analysis, I(2) statistic regarding the main outcome was reduced under the 50% threshold removing one trial, but the resulting confidence interval crossed unity. Also the confidence interval of the common RR of the four studies reporting only one IVF/ICSI cycle included unity. Only part of the studies could be included in the assessment of secondary outcomes. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Adenomyosis appears to impact negatively on IVF/ICSI outcome owing to reduced likelihood of clinical pregnancy and implantation, and increased risk of early pregnancy loss. Screening for adenomyosis before embarking on medically assisted reproductive procedures should be encouraged. The potentially protective role of long down-regulation protocols needs further evaluation. In future studies on the association between adenomyosis and IVF/ICSI outcome, a matched case-control design should be adopted, live birth should be the default primary outcome and only the results regarding the first cycle should be considered. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST: None.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,017 | 0,041 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,021 | 0,049 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,008 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».