Impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on clinical outcomes of in vitro fertilization treatments: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of SARS-CoV-2 infection on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization has been uncertain. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the impact of past SARS-CoV-2 infection on IVF outcomes. A comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted from December 2019 to January 2023. Included studies comparing IVF outcomes between patients with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and controls without previous infection were analyzed. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Sensitivity analysis, publication bias, and heterogeneity were also examined. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023392007). A total of eight studies, involving 317 patients with past SARS-CoV-2 infection and 904 controls, met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis revealed no significant differences between the infection group and controls in terms of clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.73-1.29; P = 0.82), implantation rate (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.67-1.46; P = 0.96), or miscarriage rate (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.15-2.65; P = 0.53). Subgroup analyses based on transfer type demonstrated comparable clinical pregnancy rates between the two groups in both fresh embryo transfer (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.69-1.36; P = 0.86) and frozen embryo transfer (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.38-2.44; P = 0.94). In conclusion, this meta-analysis suggests that previous SARS-CoV-2 infection does not have a detrimental impact on clinical outcomes in IVF patients. These findings provide valuable insights into assessing the influence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection on successful pregnancy outcomes in IVF treatment. The systematic review was performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. This review was prospectively registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (ID CRD42023392007) on January 16, 2023.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".