MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407312394 · doi:10.1002/brb3.70293

Relationship Between Sleep Disturbances and In Vitro Fertilization Outcomes in Infertile Women: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

2025· review· en· W4407312394 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Farangis Habibi, Roya Nikbakht, Shayesteh Jahanfar, Mohammad Reza Hafezi Ahmadi, Maryam Eslami, Marzieh Azizi, Zohreh Shahhosseini

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain and Behavior · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersStudent Research Committee, Tabriz University of Medical SciencesMazandaran University of Medical Sciences
KeywordsMeta-analysisMedicineFunnel plotOdds ratioConfidence intervalPregnancyInfertilityIn vitro fertilisationCochrane LibraryCohort studyCross-sectional studyObstetricsPublication biasGynecologyInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In vitro fertilization (IVF) has been acknowledged as the primary assisted reproductive technique for fertilizing oocytes outside the female reproductive system. Sleep disorders are likely to affect infertility and its treatment. The present study was to investigate the relationship between sleep disturbances and IVF outcomes in infertile women. METHODS: Databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, ProQuest, and Web of Science, were searched for the relevant articles published up to September 2023. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. Moreover, the random and fixed effects models using the STATA (v.11) software program presented the odds ratio with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Ultimately, a funnel plot was recruited to examine the sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: During the initial search, 426 articles were retrieved, and ultimately, nine studies remained for systematic review, and among them, four studies entered into the meta-analysis (two cohort and two cross-sectional studies). According to the fixed effects model of the cross-sectional studies, the association between sleep quality and pregnancy rate was not confirmed (OR = 0.94; 95% CI = 0.81-1.07). Regarding the fixed effects model of included cohort studies, the results indicated an association between sleep quality and the pregnancy rate (OR = 1.08; 95% CI = 1.03-1.14). According to the random effects model of the cross-sectional studies, there was no significant association between sleep quality and pregnancy rate (OR = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.37-1.26). Regarding the random effect analysis of included cohort studies, the results indicated an association between sleep quality and the pregnancy rate (OR = 1.08; 95% CI = 1.03-1.14). Based on the total fixed effect analysis of the cross-sectional and cohort studies, the results also showed a significant association between sleep quality and pregnancy rate among infertile women (OR = 1.06; 95% CI = 1.01-1.11). In contrast, according to the random effect of the total studies, this association was not confirmed (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.90-1.14). CONCLUSION: Although the meta-analysis of the cohort studies showed a significant association between sleep quality and IVF outcomes, such as pregnancy rate, due to the novelty of the subject, more studies have not been published, and this study is considered a preliminary meta-analysis. Therefore, more studies with a strong methodology need to assess the relationship between sleep disorders and IVF outcomes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.884
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain and BehaviorSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207