Overall prognosis with current treatment of infertility

John A. Collins
In: Human Reproduction Update · 2004 · vol. 10(4) , pp. 309–316 · doi:10.1093/humupd/dmh029 · PMID:15192058 · W2149538434
article OA: bronze CC0 ⤵ 3 in-corpus citations
📄 Open PDF View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by gemini-2.5-flash-lite, 2026-06-08 ⓘ

This model estimated overall live birth rates for infertility treatment, finding that even with extensive assisted reproduction technology use, typically less than 50% of couples achieve a live birth.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

Few reports provide pregnancy or birth rates for large groups of infertile couples having a comprehensive range of treatments. This model utilizes published evidence about diagnosis, treatment, the duration of treatment and the proportion of couples receiving treatment. Assisted reproduction technology treatment (ART) utilization was set arbitrarily at three levels: 3, 10 or 50% of the couples that had no live birth after conventional treatment. For each diagnosis and treatment the model estimated total live births, singleton live births and multiple live births per 10,000 couples. The overall live birth rate with non-ART treatment would be 37%, involving 3,725 live births, of which 3,478 (93%) would be singleton and 247 (7%) would be multiple. With ART utilization at 3, 10 and 50% of couples with persistent infertility in each diagnostic category, live birth rates were 39, 43 and 47% respectively, with 8, 10 and 12% multiple births. The corresponding utilization of ART would be 244, 813 and 1481 ART cycles per 10(6) population per annum. Typical management of infertility would fall short of 50% live births even with extensive utilization of ART. Underlying unknown untreatable factors remain barriers to greater overall success in the treatment of infertility.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Condition tags

infertility

Citation neighborhood (2-hop)

Papers in the corpus that this work cites (lower rings, blue) and that cite this one (upper rings, green). Dot size scales with the paper's in-corpus citation count — bigger dot = more influential within the endo/adeno field. Click a dot to open that paper. Outer rings show 2-hop neighbours — papers reached through the immediate citers/citees. [ collapse to 1-hop ]

References (56)

Cited by (3)

Source provenance

openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK