The effect of endometriosis on <i>in vitro</i> fertilisation outcome: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endometriosis is found in 0.5-5% of fertile women and 25-40% of infertile women. It is known that endometriosis is associated with infertility, but there is uncertainty whether women with endometriosis have adverse pregnancy outcomes in in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment. OBJECTIVES: To explore the association between endometriosis and IVF outcome. SEARCH STRATEGY: Searches were conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science (inception, December 2012) in all languages, together with reference lists of retrieved papers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies comparing IVF outcome in women with endometriosis with women without endometriosis. Patients were classified by stage of endometriosis. The outcomes were fertilisation, implantation, clinical pregnancy and live birth rates. Study selection was conducted independently by two reviewers. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used for quality assessment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction was conducted independently by two reviewers. Relative risks from individual studies were meta-analysed. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-seven observational studies were included, comprising 8984 women. Meta-analysis of these studies showed that fertilisation rates were reduced in stage I/II of endometriosis (relative risk [RR] = 0.93, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.87-0.99, P = 0.03). There was a decrease in the implantation rate (RR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.67-0.93, P = 0.006) and clinical pregnancy rate (RR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.69-0.91, P = 0.0008) in women with stage III/IV endometriosis undergoing IVF treatment. CONCLUSION: The presence of severe endometriosis (stage III/IV) is associated with poor implantation and clinical pregnancy rates in women undergoing IVF treatment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".