Surgery for Inflammatory Bowel Disease Has Unclear Impact on Female Fertility: A Cochrane Collaboration Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Surgical treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may impair female fertility. We conducted a systematic review to determine the risk of infertility and pregnancy outcomes in women with IBD who underwent surgery. METHODS: We identified studies evaluating the impact of IBD surgery on infertility and pregnancy outcomes. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled when data were presented using contingency tables. Odds ratios (OR) were pooled when raw numbers were not provided. GRADE was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Sixteen observational studies were included, comparing women with and without surgery, open and laparoscopic surgery and before and after surgery. All studies were of low quality. The effect of surgery on infertility at 12 months (RR 5.45, 95% CI 0.41 to 72.57) was uncertain. Similarly, the fertility effects of laparoscopic versus open surgery method were unclear (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.27). The impact of IBD surgery on pregnancy outcomes should be interpreted with caution. Surgery was associated with miscarriage (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.60), use of assisted reproductive technologies (RR 25.09, 95% CI 1.56 to 403.76) and caesarean section (RR 2.23, 95% CI 1.00 to 4.95), but not with stillbirth (RR 1.96, 95% CI 0.42 to 9.18), preterm birth (RR 1.91, 95% CI 0.67 to 5.48), low birth weight (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.08 to 4.83) or small for gestational age (RR 2.54, 95% CI 0.80 to 8.01). CONCLUSION: The effect of surgical therapy for IBD on rates of female infertility and pregnancy-related outcomes was uncertain due to poor quality of existing literature.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".