Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 338

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Predictive factors in in vitro fertilization (IVF): a systematic review and meta-analysis

van Loendersloot, L.L., van Wely, M., Limpens, J., Bossuyt, P.M.M., Repping, S., van der Veen, F.·2010·Human Reproduction Update

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/humupd/dmq015

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.

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

Cited by

See all 338

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
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.