MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Isthmocele, not cesarean section per se, reduces in vitro fertilization success: a systematic review and meta-analysis of over 10,000 embryo transfer cycles

2023· review· en· W4388562488 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amerigo Vitagliano, Ettore Cicinelli, Paola Viganò, Giuseppe Sorgente, Pierpaolo Nicolì, Andrea Busnelli, Miriam Dellino, Gianluca Raffaello Damiani, Sandro Gerli, Alessandro Favilli

Bibliographic record

VenueFertility and Sterility · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLive birthIn vitro fertilisationOdds ratioObstetricsGynecologyMeta-analysisPregnancyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: Previous reviews have shown that a history of cesarean section (CS) is associated with a worse in vitro fertilization (IVF) prognosis. To date, whether the decline in the IVF chances of success should be attributed to the CS procedure itself or to the presence of isthmocele remains to be clarified. OBJECTIVE: To summarize the available evidence regarding the impact of isthmocele on IVF outcomes. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases and clinical registers were searched until May 30, 2023. STUDY SELECTION AND SYNTHESIS: Observational studies were included if they assessed the effect of isthmocele on IVF outcomes. Comparators were women with isthmocele and women without isthmocele with a previous CS or vaginal delivery. Study quality was assessed using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was the live birth rate (LBR). The effect measures were expressed as adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and unadjusted odds ratios (uORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). The body of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group methodology. RESULTS: Eight studies (n = 10,873 patients) were included in the analysis. Women with isthmocele showed a lower LBR than both women with a previous CS without isthmocele (aOR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.53-0.72) and those with a history of vaginal delivery (aOR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.42-0.71). The LBRs in women with a previous CS without isthmocele and those with a history of vaginal delivery were similar (aOR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.47-1.15). Subgroup analysis suggested a negative effect of the intracavitary fluid (ICF) in women with isthmocele on the LBR (uOR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.18-0.75), whereas the LBRs in women without ICF and those without isthmocele were similar (uOR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.61-1.45). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: We found moderate quality of evidence (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation grade 3/4) supporting a negative impact of isthmocele, but not of CS per se, on the LBR in women undergoing IVF. The adverse effect of isthmocele on IVF outcomes appears to be worsened by ICF accumulation before embryo transfer. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023418266.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.028
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations41
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFertility and SterilitySame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207