Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 387

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A meta-analysis of outcomes of conventional IVF in women with polycystic ovary syndrome

Heijnen, E.M.E.W., Eijkemans, M.J.C., Hughes, E.G., Laven, J.S.E., Macklon, N.S., Fauser, B.C.J.M.·2006·Human Reproduction Update

Abstract

This meta-analysis was conducted to compare outcomes of conventional IVF in women presenting with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and non-PCOS patients. Studies in which PCOS patients undergoing IVF were compared with a matched--no male factor--control group were considered for this review. A definition consistent with the Rotterdam consensus criteria of PCOS was required, and all patients within a given study had to be treated with the same ovarian stimulation protocol. Information regarding patient characteristics and pregnancy outcome was also required. Nine out of 290 identified studies reporting data on 458 PCOS patients (793 cycles) and 694 matched controls (1116 cycles) fulfilled these inclusion criteria. PCOS patients demonstrated a significantly reduced chance of oocyte retrieval per started cycle, odds ratio (OR) = 0.5 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.2-1.0]. However, no difference was observed in chance of embryo transfer per oocyte retrieval between the groups (OR = 0.7, 95% CI = 0.4-1.3). Significantly more oocytes per retrieval were obtained in PCOS patients compared with controls [random effects estimate 3.4 [95% (CI) = 1.7-5.1)]. The number of oocytes fertilized did not differ significantly between PCOS patients and controls, weighted mean difference (WMD) 0.1 oocytes (95% CI = 21.4-1.6). No significant difference was observed in the clinical pregnancy rates per started cycle, OR = 1.0 (95% CI = 0.8-1.3). The incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) after oocyte retrieval was rarely reported. This meta-analysis demonstrates an increased cancellation rate, but more oocytes retrieved per retrieval and a lower fertilization rate in PCOS undergoing IVF. Overall, PCOS and control patients achieved similar pregnancy and live birth rates per cycle.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/humupd/dmi036

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 387

Metadata

Authors
Heijnen, E. M. E. W., Eijkemans, M. J. C., Hughes, E. G., Laven, J. S. E., Macklon, N. S., & Fauser, B. C. J. M.
Venue
Human Reproduction Update
Published
2005-08-25
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
13-21
ISSN
  • 1355-4786 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2369
OpenAlex
W2135173604
Cited by
387
References
1
FWCI
2.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A meta-analysis of outcomes of conventional IVF in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/humupd/dmi036
The paper
Heijnen, E. M. E. W., Eijkemans, M. J. C., Hughes, E. G., Laven, J. S. E., Macklon, N. S., & Fauser, B. C. J. M. (2006). A meta-analysis of outcomes of conventional IVF in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Human Reproduction Update. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmi036

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.