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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.609
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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