MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416815529 · doi:10.1093/humrep/deaf212

Recommendations from the WHO guideline for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of infertility

2025· article· en· W4416815529 on OpenAlexaff
Adam Balen, Ben J Cohlen, Carin Huyser, Dmitry M. Kissin, Nalini Mahajan, Ragaa Mansour, Alfred Murage, Richard H. Reindollar, Roberta Rizzo, Rita Sembuya, Gamal I. Serour, Basil C. Tarlatzis, Carla Tatone, Marie Lena Windt De Beer, Amal Benbella, Márcia Mendonça Carneiro, Julia Mato Chaín, Ivonne Jeannette Díaz Yamal, Bart C.J.M. Fauser, Muntaha Gharaibeh, Grigoris Grimbizis, Joyce Harper, Marcia C. Inhorn, Mohan S Kamath, Tamar Khomasuridze, Neena Malhotra, Edgar Mocanu, Ben Willem Mol, Olarik Musigavong, Zozo Nene, Robert J. Norman, Sasha Ottey, Ameet Patki, Jie Qiao, Promise E. Sefogah, Oleg Tishkevich, Karla Torres, Sheryl van der Poel, Mónica H. Vazquez‐Levin, Maria P. Vélez, Nathalie Vermeulen, Mohamed Ahmed Youssef, Lianne Gonsalves, Ndema Habib, Aasa Nihlén, Nandita Thatte, Daniel McCartney, Remco P. H. Peters, Teodora Wi, Dongbo Fu, Kerstin Schotte, Elena Fidarova, Lorenzo Moja, Meera Thapa Upadhyay, Oleg Kuzmenko, Ian Askew, Rajat Khosla, Thabo Matsaseng, Paula Amato, Priya Satalkar-Götz, Jaime Onofre, Marion Blacker, Rebekah Thomas-Bosco, Pascale Allotey, Gitau Mburu, Nancy Santesso, Romina Brignardello-Petersen, Richard Kennedy, Cindy Farquhar, Jacky Boivin, Guido Pennings, Linda C. Giudice, Robert W. Rebar, Luca Gianaroli, Lan N. Vuong, Sandro C. Esteves, Christopher J. De Jonge, Allan Pacey, Willem Ombelet, Tansu Küçük, Barbara Collura, Klaudija Kordic, James Kiarie

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Reproduction · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Technologies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersWorld Health Organization
KeywordsGuidelineInfertilityWarrantyMEDLINEFemale infertility

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY QUESTION: What is the recommended prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of infertility among individuals and couples? SUMMARY ANSWER: The World Health Organization (WHO) made 40 recommendations and six good practice statements for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The field of sexual and reproductive health care, including family planning has progressed in the last several decades. Significant progress has also been made in the field of medically assisted reproduction. Globally, one in six people experience infertility in their lifetime. However, many countries do not include the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of infertility in health policies, financing, and services, and many do not have national clinical guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of infertility. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The guideline was developed according to the WHO handbook for guideline development. A Guideline Development Group (GDG) was assembled and included a multidisciplinary and regionally diverse set of clinicians, policymakers, researchers, implementers, and representatives of patient groups (n=30). The GDG prioritized key recommendation questions to address in the guideline. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: New systematic reviews were conducted, or existing reviews updated, to inform the recommendations. The GRADE approach was used to assess the certainty of the evidence and to guide the formulation of recommendations. The GDG interpreted evidence and made judgments about the balance between benefits and harms (including patients' values) as well as costs, feasibility, acceptability, and equity. The recommendations were drafted, reviewed by an External Review Group (ERG) comprising 30 members, and approved by the WHO. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The guideline makes good practice statements related to the general management of infertility (n = 6) including (i) selection of tests, (ii) listening to individuals and couples with infertility, (iii) choosing treatment decisions, (iv) clinical follow-up, and (v) documenting outcomes of treatment. In relation to prevention, it provides recommendations related to the provision of information about fertility and infertility (n = 1) and reduction of infertility risk from sexually transmitted infections (STIs; n = 1), lifestyle factors (n = 1), and tobacco use (n = 1). In terms of diagnosis, recommendations for diagnosing infertility caused by ovulatory dysfunction (n = 3), tubal disease (n = 1), or uterine cavity abnormalities (n = 5) among females are provided. For males, the guideline provides recommendations regarding when a semen test should be repeated (n = 2). Also included is a recommendation for diagnosing unexplained infertility (n = 1). Regarding treatment, the guideline provides recommendations related to the treatment of polycystic ovary syndrome (n = 6), tubal disease (n = 5), uterine septae (n = 1), varicocele (n = 4), and unexplained infertility (n = 6). Based on available evidence, the GDG did not make a recommendation for or against the use of antioxidant supplements in males. Most recommendations were conditional because relevant evidence was either absent, or of low or very low certainty. Critical research gaps were identified. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The recommendations do not cover all aspects of infertility and fertility care, but subsequent editions of the guideline will expand the scope of recommendations. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: By centring equity, science, and the imperative to provide fertility care as part of universal health coverage, the guideline aims to support countries in delivering high-quality, equitable, and effective healthcare for all. Although the guideline is primarily intended for use by health care professionals, it is an important source for policymakers to inform national guidelines and to inform the work of professional patient support, including advocacy organizations, funding and philanthropic agencies, civil society, professional societies, and other nongovernmental organizations that provide social, financial, and technical support to reproductive health programmes. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This work received funding from the UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), a cosponsored programme executed by the World Health Organization (WHO). Full details of declared interests of all named authors are shown in Supplementary Table S1, those for members of the GDG who are not named authors are shown in Supplementary Table S2 and those for members of the ERG are shown in Supplementary Table S3. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A. DISCLAIMER: This manuscript reports a summary of recommendations from a WHO guideline. All reasonable precautions have been taken by WHO to verify the information contained in the guideline publication. However, the published material is being distributed without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.745
Threshold uncertainty score0.235

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.308 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations11
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman ReproductionSame topicReproductive Health and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207