Assisted Reproductive Therapy (ART) Outcomes in Women with a History of Tuberculosis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Genital tuberculosis (TB) is a significant cause of infertility in high disease burden countries. Assisted Reproductive Therapy (ART) success in this population remains unclear. Objectives: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess ART outcomes in women with a history of TB. Search Strategy: Studies were identified through PubMed, Embase, Global Health and Cinhal. Selection Criteria: Studies reporting ART outcomes in women with a history of TB, compared to women without TB, were included. Studies without a non-TB comparison group were excluded. Data Collection and Analysis: Four authors independently screened articles. Risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Score. Meta-analysis was performed with random-effects models to compute odds of clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, live birth and mean differences in oocytes retrieved. Main Results: Of 1184 records identified, 12 studies were included. Ten studies underwent meta-analysis, comprising 3,532 TB patients and 9,163 non-TB patients. Women with TB had significantly lower odds of clinical pregnancy (odds ratio [OR] 0.82, 95% CI [0.67, 1.01], p=0.06) and live births (OR 0.74, 95% CI [0.61, 0.90], p=<0.001). The odds of miscarriage (OR 1.37, 95% CI [0.91, 2.05], p=0.13) was higher in TB patients with a trend towards significance. Mean number of oocytes retrieved (mean difference -0.20, 95% confidence interval CI [-1.32, 0.92], p=0.73) was not different between the groups. Conclusions: ART outcomes are poorer in women with a history of TB. Variability in study quality and bias suggests the need for multi-centre studies with standardized reporting of ART outcomes and TB treatment.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".