Fertility and sterility最新文献

{"title":"Fertility preservation and mental health among cancer patients of reproductive age","authors":"Julia Stal Ph.D. ,&nbsp;Catherine Benedict Ph.D. ,&nbsp;Ann H. Partridge M.D., M.P.H. ,&nbsp;Cristina Pozo-Kaderman Ph.D. ,&nbsp;Jennifer W. Mack M.D., M.P.H","doi":"10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.07.007","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.07.007","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Many cancer patients and survivors of reproductive age report parenthood as one of their most important life goals. As a result, infertility, interruption to childbearing, or inability to conceive can have profound negative mental health impacts for this population, who often report fertility-related distress, depression, anxiety, and reproductive concerns. Most patients who preserve fertility report feeling confident in their decision, even if preservation outcomes are not favorable, whereas patients who do not preserve fertility report higher rates of decisional regret. Integrating mental health into clinical models of oncofertility care delivery is critical to ensure that patients with new, persistent, or worsening psychological symptoms are captured and appropriately cared for. We aim to underscore the importance of supportive mental health care provided in tandem with reproductive health care for reproductive-aged cancer patients and survivors before, during, and after treatment.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12275,"journal":{"name":"Fertility and sterility","volume":"124 4","pages":"Pages 612-618"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144787224","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Celebrating 75 years of Fertility and Sterility","authors":"Micah Hill D.O.","doi":"10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.08.006","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.08.006","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":12275,"journal":{"name":"Fertility and sterility","volume":"124 4","pages":"Page 581"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145219008","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Wildfire smoke exposure is associated with decreased sperm concentration and total motile sperm count.","authors":"Lillian X Lindell, Sarah K Holt, Erin Petersen, Navya Gunaje, Arash Amighi, Amanda Haack, Anthony Bui, Ryan Nasseri, Theodore Crisostomo-Wynne, Catherine J Karr, Charles H Muller, Thomas J Walsh, Tristan M Nicholson","doi":"10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.08.031","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.08.031","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To examine the impact of smoke exposure on semen analysis parameters of intrauterine insemination (IUI) patients in the greater Seattle, Washington area, as wildfire becomes more prevalent. We hypothesized that wildfire smoke exposure was associated with a decline in total motile sperm count.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Subjects: </strong>Patients undergoing fertility treatments at the University of Washington from 2018 to 2022.</p><p><strong>Exposure: </strong>Subjects were exposed to seasonal wildfire events in the fall of 2018, 2020, and 2022. Pre-exposure semen was a diagnostic fresh sample before each respective wildfire event, whereas post-exposure semen was taken at the time of IUI during the wildfire smoke exposure windows. All subjects acted as their own controls in a paired pre-post analysis.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Primary outcome measure was total motile sperm count; secondary outcome measures were semen volume, sperm concentration, total sperm count, total progressively motile sperm count, percent motile sperm, percent progressively motile sperm.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighty-four subjects were identified who underwent IUI across the 2018 (n = 27), 2020 (n = 30), and 2022 (n = 27) wildfire smoke events. Median time between initial semen analysis and semen analysis for IUI was 4 months. We observed a decline in sperm concentration, total sperm count, total motile sperm count, and total progressively motile sperm count. We also observed an increase in percent progressively motile sperm. These trends did not differ across event years.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our results are consistent with a prior small study demonstrating that wildfire smoke exposure is associated with declines in sperm quality. These findings highlight the need for further research on the effects of wildfire smoke exposure on human sperm and fertility treatments, especially as smoke exposures are expected to increase with climate change.</p>","PeriodicalId":12275,"journal":{"name":"Fertility and sterility","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145212165","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Fertility preservation for cancer: referral guidelines, treatment options, and specific considerations","authors":"Shilpa Kalluru M.D.,&nbsp;Michelle Vu M.D.,&nbsp;Paula C. Brady M.D.","doi":"10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.08.017","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.08.017","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>As cancer incidence and survival rates increase among individuals of reproductive age, fertility preservation has become a critical component of comprehensive cancer care. Gonadotoxic treatments --such as chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery --can significantly impair reproductive potential, yet access to fertility preservation remains inconsistent. This review examines the clinical and logistical considerations involved in implementing fertility preservation for cancer patients, including patient selection, preservation methods, timing, and barriers to care. A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Embase from inception to February 2025, including original research, observational, and qualitative studies. Despite guidelines from ASCO and ASRM recommending early fertility preservation consultation, referral rates remain low due to provider, institutional, and financial barriers. The choice and feasibility of fertility preservation depend on factors such as cancer type, treatment urgency, patient age, and overall medical condition. Oocyte and embryo cryopreservation are standard options, while ovarian tissue cryopreservation is suitable for prepubertal patients or those requiring urgent treatment. Fertility preservation requires timely, multidisciplinary coordination, with individualized patient assessment and early referral essential for optimizing outcomes. Addressing systemic, educational, and financial obstacles is crucial to ensuring equitable access and maintaining future parenthood opportunities as a priority in oncologic care planning.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12275,"journal":{"name":"Fertility and sterility","volume":"124 4","pages":"Pages 585-592"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144923876","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The illusion of reproductive choice: how restorative reproductive medicine violates reproductive autonomy and informed consent","authors":"Benjamin J. Peipert M.D. ,&nbsp;Jamie T. Kuhlman Ph.D. ,&nbsp;Eve C. Feinberg M.D.","doi":"10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.07.023","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.07.023","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":12275,"journal":{"name":"Fertility and sterility","volume":"124 4","pages":"Pages 630-632"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145219383","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Developing a decision support tool to optimize oocyte thawing for producing at least three euploid blastocysts","authors":"Emily A. Clarke M.D. ,&nbsp;Carlos Hernandez-Nieto M.D. ,&nbsp;Michelle Bayefsky M.D. ,&nbsp;Morgan Baird M.P.H. ,&nbsp;Richard Slifkin M.S. ,&nbsp;Joseph A. Lee B.A. ,&nbsp;Christine Briton-Jones Ph.D. ,&nbsp;Alan B. Copperman M.D.","doi":"10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.06.005","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.06.005","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Objective&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;To assess the optimal number of oocytes needed to thaw to yield ≥3 euploid blastocysts.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Design&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;Retrospective cohort study.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Subjects&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;Patients who underwent oocyte cryopreservation&lt;span&gt;&lt;span&gt; and returned for thaw between 2012 and 2024 at a single academic-affiliated fertility clinic. Patients were grouped by number of oocytes thawed (group A: 2–8, group B: 9–11, group C: 12–16, and group D: &gt;16 oocytes). Patients were excluded if they did not use preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy, had multiple cryopreservation cycles combined within one thaw cycle, or opted for fresh &lt;/span&gt;embryo transfer.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Exposure&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;Number of oocytes thawed.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Main Outcome Measures&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;Primary outcome was the number of oocytes needed to thaw to produce ≥3 euploid blastocysts. Secondary outcomes included oocyte thaw laboratory outcomes. Subgroup analysis was performed by age groups at cryopreservation (&lt;35, 35 to &lt;38, 38 to &lt;41, and ≥41 years).&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Results&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;A total of 417 oocyte thaw cycles were included. Overall, 50.0% of patients in group D (&gt;16 oocytes thawed, n = 104 cycles) achieved ≥3 euploid blastocysts, compared with 27.7% in group C (12–16 oocytes, n = 101), 16.5% in group B (9–11 oocytes, n = 103), and 5.5% in group A (2–8 oocytes, n = 109). In age groups &lt;35 and 35 to &lt;38, compared with thaw group D, patients in thaw group C had similar odds of producing ≥3 euploids (&lt;35: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.47 [0.17–1.34]; 35 to &lt;38: aOR 0.45 [0.19–1.10]); however, thaw groups A and B had significantly lower chances compared with group D (&lt;35 years: group A: aOR 0.13 [0.04–0.50], group B: aOR 0.10 [0.03–0.41]; and 35 to &lt;38 years: group A: aOR 0.06 [0.01–0.28], group B: aOR 0.45 (0.34 [0.13–0.88]). Patients in age groups ≥38 years (n = 118) produced ≥3 euploid blastocysts in only 3.4% of cycles.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;In patients &lt;38 years, thawing 12–16 oocytes yields similar chances of producing ≥3 euploid blastocysts compared with thawing &gt;16 oocytes. Patients with &lt;12 vitrified oocytes should thaw all available oocytes or, if limited, should consider additional cryopreservation cycles. Conversely, patients with many vitrified oocytes may consider limiting the thaw to 16 oocytes, because thawing all does not appear to provide additional benefit in achieving one live birth.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt;Desarrollo de una herramienta de apoyo en la toma de decisiones para optimizar la descongelación de ovocitos y así producir al menos tres blastocistos euploides.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Objetivo&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;Evaluar el número óptimo de ovocitos necesarios a descongelar, con el fin de obtener ≥3 blastocistos euploides.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Diseño&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Sujetos&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;Pacientes que se sometieron a la c","PeriodicalId":12275,"journal":{"name":"Fertility and sterility","volume":"124 4","pages":"Pages 694-700"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144295715","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Perinatal outcomes of siblings: are they different across conception methods?","authors":"Xin Xin M.M.,&nbsp;Wenhan Ju M.M.,&nbsp;Jinfu Zhang M.D.","doi":"10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.06.008","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.06.008","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":12275,"journal":{"name":"Fertility and sterility","volume":"124 4","pages":"Page 790"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144295797","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Live birth rate outcomes after a change in endometrial preparation after a failed frozen embryo transfer cycle","authors":"Maren Bettermann M.D.,&nbsp;Amy Sparks Ph.D.,&nbsp;Karen Summers M.P.H.,&nbsp;Rachel Mejia D.O.","doi":"10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.05.157","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.05.157","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":12275,"journal":{"name":"Fertility and sterility","volume":"124 4","pages":"Pages 778-780"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144122080","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Recommendation to improve the rigor and impact of nonrandomized studies of interventions in fertility treatment research","authors":"Juan-Enrique Schwarze M.D. ,&nbsp;Peter W.G. Tennant Ph.D. ,&nbsp;Kurt Barnhart M.D. M.S.C.E. ,&nbsp;Robert W. Platt Ph.D. ,&nbsp;Shiv Gupta M.B.B.S. ,&nbsp;Christos Venetis M.D., Ph.D. ,&nbsp;Thomas D'Hooghe M.D., Ph.D. ,&nbsp;Enrique F. Schisterman Ph.D.","doi":"10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.05.168","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.05.168","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Objective&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;To provide a framework for conducting rigorous nonrandomized studies of interventions in fertility treatment research, addressing their role as complements to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in evaluating treatment outcomes.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Design&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;Multidisciplinary expert consensus on best practices for nonrandomized studies of interventions, informed by advancements in novel methodologies, including causal inference.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Subjects&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;Patients undergoing assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) procedures, such as ovarian stimulation, laboratory techniques, and embryo transfer.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Intervention&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;None.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Main Outcome Measures&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;Guidance on methodological rigor, transparency, and relevance in nonrandomized studies of interventions study design and analysis.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Results&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;Randomized controlled trials are the gold standard for determining the efficacy and safety of fertility treatment/ART interventions but can face logistical, practical, and sometimes ethical challenges. Nonrandomized studies of interventions, when conducted with high methodological rigor, complement RCTs by offering insights into real-world clinical practices and diverse patient populations. Key limitations of nonrandomized studies of interventions include susceptibility to confounding and selection bias, which require meticulous study design and advanced analytical techniques to address. Recent innovations, such as target trial emulation studies, have enhanced the validity of causal inferences based on nonrandomized studies of interventions. This article outlines 7 recommendations to improve the credibility of nonrandomized studies of interventions in ART research: clearly define research questions with precise estimands; design nonrandomized studies of interventions as emulated trials; use directed acyclic graphs to clarify causal assumptions; preregister study protocols; separate data analysis from study planning; incorporate negative controls to detect biases; and use appropriate analytical methods to account for confounding and selection bias.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;Integrating evidence from RCTs and well-conducted nonrandomized studies of interventions enhances clinical decision making in fertility treatment research. By adhering to these recommendations, researchers can improve the quality, transparency, and impact of nonrandomized studies of interventions, ultimately fostering robust, evidence-based clinical practices in fertility treatment/ART.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt;Recomendaciones para mejorar el rigor y el impacto de los estudios no aleatorizados de intervenciones en la investigación de tratamientos de fertilidad&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Objetivo&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;Proporcionar un marco para la realización de estudios no aleatorizados rigurosos sobre intervenciones en investigación de tratamientos de fertilidad, abordando su papel com","PeriodicalId":12275,"journal":{"name":"Fertility and sterility","volume":"124 4","pages":"Pages 749-758"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144224806","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Impact on clinical outcomes of membership in the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology","authors":"Daniela Diego M.D. ,&nbsp;Ilissa Pipia B.S. ,&nbsp;Ariana Traub M.D. ,&nbsp;Gabriela Beroukhim M.D. ,&nbsp;Farrah Saleh M.D. ,&nbsp;James P. Toner M.D., Ph.D. ,&nbsp;Steven Spandorfer M.D.","doi":"10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.06.011","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.06.011","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Objective&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;To compare attributes and clinical outcomes of clinics affiliated with the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) with those not affiliated.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Design&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;Observational cross-sectional study of SART and non-SART member clinics using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data from 2021.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Subjects&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;Aggregate clinic summaries from all US assisted reproductive technology (ART) clinics.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Exposure&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;None.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Main Outcome Measures&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;Oversight mechanisms and pregnancy outcomes of SART and non-SART clinics were compared. Specifically, live birth rates (LBRs) (per intended retrieval, completed retrieval, and first embryo transfer), singleton, term, normal-weight deliveries (per intended retrieval, completed retrieval, and first embryo transfer), and multifetal and miscarriage rates in SART and non-SART clinics were compared.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Results&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;Of the 496 US ART clinics in 2021, 72.8% were SART members. Among the non-SART clinics, 17.7% reported directly to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and 9.4% did not report at all (a violation of federal law). The SART clinics had higher LBRs per retrieval than non-SART clinics across all age groups (age of &lt;35 years, 54.87% vs. 45.7% age of 35–37 years, 40.82% vs. 34.59%; age of 38–40 years, 26.14% vs. 20.45%; age of &gt;40 years, 10.38% vs. 6.02%). The SART clinics also had higher LBRs of singleton, term, normal-weight infants than non-SART clinics (age of &lt;35 years, 42.47% vs. 29.54%; age of 35–37 years, 31.71% vs. 25.11%; age of 38–40 years, 21.28% vs. 15.74%; age of &gt;40 years, 8.11% vs. 4.05%). In addition, rates of multifetal gestation and miscarriage were lower in SART clinics than in non-SART clinics across all age groups.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;The SART clinics demonstrated better ART clinical outcomes than non-SART clinics, likely due to enhanced regulatory oversight, including the following: higher LBRs when compared per cycle start, per oocyte retrieval, and per embryo transfer; higher rates of singleton, full-term live births of normal-weight infants; lower rates of multifetal delivery; and lower rates of miscarriage.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt;Impacto en los resultados clínicos de la pertenencia a la Sociedad de Tecnología Reproductiva&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Objetivo&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;Comparar las características y los resultados clínicos de las clínicas afiliadas a la Sociedad de Tecnología de Reproducción Asistida (SART) con las de las no afiliadas.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Diseño&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;Estudio observacional transversal de clínicas miembros de SART y no miembros de SART, utilizando datos de los Centros para el Control y la Prevención de Enfermedades de 2021.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Sujetos&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;Resúmenes clínicos agregados de todas las clínicas de tecnología de reproducción asistida (TRA) de EE. UU.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Ex","PeriodicalId":12275,"journal":{"name":"Fertility and sterility","volume":"124 4","pages":"Pages 720-727"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144305093","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}