MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3194627096 · doi:10.1111/aogs.14239

Reproductive and pregnancy outcomes following embryo transfer in women with previous cesarean section: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2021· review· en· W3194627096 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gaetano Riemma, Pasquale De Franciscis, Marco Torella, Giuliana Narciso, Marco La Verde, Maddalena Morlando, Luigi Cobellis, Nicola Colacurci

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEctopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePregnancyObstetricsEmbryo transferRelative riskAssisted reproductive technologyGynecologyMeta-analysisConfidence intervalCochrane LibraryPregnancy rateInfertilityInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Cesarean section affects subsequent spontaneous pregnancies because of implantation issues. However, its impact on post-embryo transfer pregnancies is still debated. This review aimed to evaluate the impact of a previous cesarean section on fertility and pregnancy outcomes of women undergoing fresh or frozen embryo transfer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: MEDLINE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, Scielo, EMBASE, Cochrane Library at the CENTRAL, and LILACS were searched from inception to February 2021. Studies were included if they evaluated reproductive or pregnancy outcomes after fresh or frozen embryo transfer in infertile women with a previous cesarean section relative to women with a previous vaginal delivery. Random-effect meta-analyses to calculate risk ratio (RR) or mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) followed by subgroup analysis for fresh and frozen embryo transfer were performed. Risk of bias and quality assessment were conducted using Newcastle-Ottawa scale and GRADE criteria. The review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021226297). RESULTS: Ten studies, with data provided for 13 696 participants, were eligible. For embryo transfers after cesarean section, compared with vaginal delivery, there was a significant reduction of the live birth rate (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79-0.99) and biochemical pregnancy rate (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82-0.96). No statistically significant differences were found for clinical pregnancy rate (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84-1.02), ectopic pregnancies (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68-1.46), pregnancy loss (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.94-1.18), multiple pregnancies (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.63-1.02), stillbirths (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.27-2.69), birth defects (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.49-5.96) or birthweight (mean difference 46.82, 95% CI -40.16 to 133.80). Subgroup analysis revealed an increased risk for preterm birth in post-cesarean section fresh embryo transfer pregnancies (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.16-2.19). CONCLUSIONS: Low-grade evidence shows that post-embryo transfer pregnancies in infertile women who had a previous cesarean delivery result in reduced biochemical pregnancy and live birth rates relative to women with a previous vaginal delivery. An increased risk for preterm birth is notable in post-fresh embryo transfer pregnancies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.024
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Obstetricia Et Gynecologica ScandinavicaSame topicEctopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207