The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Predictive factors in in vitro fertilization (IVF): a systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Various models have been developed for the prediction of pregnancy after in vitro fertilization (IVF). These models differ from one another in the predictors they include. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify the most relevant predictors for success in IVF. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies evaluating IVF/ICSI outcome. Studies were included if they reported an unconditional odds ratio (OR) or whenever one could be calculated for one or more of the following factors: age, type of infertility, indication, duration of infertility, basal FSH, number of oocytes, fertilization method, number of embryos transferred and embryo quality. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were identified. A summary OR could be calculated for five factors. We found negative associations between pregnancy and female age [OR: 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.94-0.96], duration of subfertility (OR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.98-1.00) and basal FSH (OR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.88-1.00). We found a positive association with number of oocytes (OR 1.04, 95% CI: 1.02-1.07). Better embryo quality was associated with higher pregnancy chances. No significant association was found for the type of infertility and fertilization method. A summary OR for IVF indication and number of embryos transferred could not be calculated, because studies reporting on these used different reference categories. CONCLUSIONS: Female age, duration of subfertility, bFSH and number of oocytes, all reflecting ovarian function, are predictors of pregnancy after IVF. Better quality studies are necessary, especially studies that focus on embryo factors that are predictive of success in IVF.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Sermondade, N., Huberlant, S., Bourhis-Lefebvre, V., Arbo, E., Gallot, V., Colombani, M., & Fréour, T. (2019) · Human Reproduction Update · doi:10.1093/humupd/dmz011 · Cited by 397
Pacchiarotti, A., Carlomagno, G., Antonini, G., & Pacchiarotti, A. (2016) · Gynecological Endocrinology · doi:10.3109/09513590.2015.1101444 · Cited by 111
RetractedSub-optimal responders following controlled ovarian stimulation: an overlooked group?
Polyzos, N. P., & Sunkara, S. K. (2015) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/humrep/dev149 · Cited by 106
Wiegel, R. E., Danser, A. H. J., van Duijn, L., Willemsen, S. P., Laven, J. S. E., Steegers, E. A. P., Baart, E. B., & Steegers-Theunissen, R. P. M. (2023) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/humrep/dead030 · Cited by 8
Metadata
- Authors
- van Loendersloot, L. L., van Wely, M., Limpens, J., Bossuyt, P. M. M., Repping, S., & van der Veen, F.
- Venue
- Human Reproduction Update
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2010
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 577-589
- ISSN
- 1355-4786 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2369
- OpenAlex
- W2095827504
- Cited by
- 338
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 2.28
- 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: Predictive factors in in vitro fertilization (IVF): a systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/humupd/dmq015
- The paper
- van Loendersloot, L. L., van Wely, M., Limpens, J., Bossuyt, P. M. M., Repping, S., & van der Veen, F. (2010). Predictive factors in in vitro fertilization (IVF): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Human Reproduction Update. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmq015
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.