MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206312869 · doi:10.1186/s13643-021-01870-8

The impact of bariatric surgery on assisted reproductive technology outcomes: a systematic review protocol

2022· review· en· W4206312869 on OpenAlexaff
Kameela Alibhai, Isabella Churchill, Tannys D.R. Vause, Heather Lochnan

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObservational studyMEDLINEScopusSystematic reviewPregnancyGrey literatureProtocol (science)Reproductive medicineAssisted reproductive technologySurgeryAlternative medicineInfertility

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Individuals with obesity are at higher risk of experiencing complications during their pregnancy and may also experience infertility, requiring assisted reproductive technologies (ART) to conceive. The current body of literature demonstrates that bariatric surgery decreases an individual's risk of developing a variety of obesity-related obstetrical conditions during and after pregnancy. However, the effects of bariatric surgery on ART outcomes are not well understood. Therefore, the paucity in the literature warrants a need to determine these effects. METHODS: We will search electronic databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), as well as the gray literature and the reference lists of included articles. We will screen all studies published between January 1978 and the present day that explore the impact of bariatric surgery on ART outcomes for women and men. We will include observational studies. Two independent reviewers will assess the studies for inclusion and extract data for each article. The main outcome that will be analyzed is live birth rate. Secondary outcomes such as time to conception, number of rounds of ART, type of bariatric surgery, and length of time between bariatric surgery and initiation of ART will also be recorded. Risk of bias will be conducted using the National Institutes of Health Study Quality Assessment Tools. A random effects model will be used to account for statistical analysis and results will be pooled with forest plots. In the event of statistical and reporting heterogeneity, we will provide a qualitative synthesis and narrative review of the results. DISCUSSION: This review will provide information on the outcomes of ART following bariatric surgery and may help healthcare professionals make informed decisions about the length of time between bariatric surgery and initiation of ART. The study findings may be of interest to various stakeholders including patients, bariatric surgeons, obstetricians, and gynecologists, and those who specialize in obesity medicine and reproductive endocrinology and infertility. We plan to disseminate our findings through presentations, publications, and social media releases to individuals who are navigating infertility and are interested in undergoing or have undergone bariatric surgery, healthcare professionals, policymakers, and researchers. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021252561.

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 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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.089
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.089
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0320.009
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.321 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin PregnancyFrench-language works237,207