Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

SART CORS IVF registry: looking to the past to shape future perspectives

  • Assisted Reproduction Technologies
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The SART CORS database is an informative source of IVF clinic-specific linked data that provides cumulative live birth rates from medically assisted reproduction in the United States (US). These data are used to develop best practice guidelines, for research, quality assurance, and post-market surveillance of assisted reproductive technologies. Here, we sought to investigate the key areas of current research focus (higher-order categories), discover gaps or underserved areas of ART research, and examine the potential application and impact of newer ART adjuvants, future data collection, and analysis needs.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review (PRISMA guidelines) to quantify unique output metrics of the SART CORS database. Included were SART member reporting clinics: full-length publications from 2004 to 2021 and conference abstracts from 2015 to 2021, the two key timepoints when the SART CORS database underwent transformative shifts in data collection.

Results

We found 206 abstracts presented from 2015 to 2021, 189 full-length peer-reviewed publications since 2004, with 654 unique authors listed on these publications. A total of 19 publications have been highly impactful, garnering over 100 citations at the time of writing. Several higher-order categories, such as endometriosis and tubal infertility, have few publications. The conversion of conference abstracts to full-length papers ranged from 15 to 35% from 2015 to 2021.

Conclusions

A substantial body of literature has been generated by analyzing the SART CORS database. Full-length publications have increased year over year. Some topic areas, such as endometriosis and tubal infertility, may be underrepresented. Conversion of conference abstracts to full-length publications has been low, indicating that more organizational support may be needed to ensure that research is methodologically sound and researchers supported to reach full publication status.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sunderam S, et al. Assisted reproductive technology surveillance - United States, 2013. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2015;64(11):1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Grimstad FW, et al. Use of ICSI in IVF cycles in women with tubal ligation does not improve pregnancy or live birth rates. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(12):2750–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Brady E, Hamilton PD, Joyce A, Martin MPH, Michelle JK, Osterman MHS. Births: provisional data for 2020, in vital statistics rapid release. 2021. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Birth-Rate-2020-Data.pdf

  4. Jain T, et al. 30 years of data: impact of the United States in vitro fertilization data registry on advancing fertility care. Fertil Steril. 2019;111(3):477–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Fauser BC. Towards the global coverage of a unified registry of IVF outcomes. Reprod Biomed Online. 2019;38(2):133–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chambers GM, et al. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies world report: assisted reproductive technology, 2014dagger. Hum Reprod. 2021;36(11):2921–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Seifer DB. Relevance of International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART) Registry report 2011. Fertil Steril. 2018;110(6):1032–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bacal V, et al. A systematic review of database validation studies among fertility populations. Hum Reprod Open. 2019;2019(3):hoz010.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Seifer DB, et al. Status of racial disparities between black and white women undergoing assisted reproductive technology in the US. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2020;18(1):113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Austin PC, et al. Missing data in clinical research: a tutorial on multiple imputation. Can J Cardiol. 2021;37(9):1322–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. National Center for HIV/AIDS, V.H., STD, and TB Prevention, CDC, Reported STDs reach all-time high for 6th consecutive year. 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/2021/2019-std-surveillance-report-press-release.html

  12. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Electronic address, A.a.o., Role of tubal surgery in the era of assisted reproductive technology: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2021;115(5):1143-1150.

  13. H Society for Adolescent, Medicine. Abstinence-only-until-marriage policies and programs: an updated position paper of the society for adolescent health and medicine. J Adolesc Health. 2017;61(3):400–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Senapati S, et al. Impact of endometriosis on in vitro fertilization outcomes: an evaluation of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technologies Database. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(1):164-171 e1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Opoien HK, et al. In vitro fertilization is a successful treatment in endometriosis-associated infertility. Fertil Steril. 2012;97(4):912–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Telfer EE, Andersen CY. In vitro growth and maturation of primordial follicles and immature oocytes. Fertil Steril. 2021;115(5):1116–25.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Mayhew AC, Gomez-Lobo V. Fertility options for the transgender and gender nonbinary patient. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020;105(10).

  18. Borras A, et al. Comparison between slow freezing and vitrification of ovarian tissue cryopreservation in assigned female at birth transgender people receiving testosterone therapy: data on histological and viability parameters. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2022;39(2):527–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rothenberg SS, Witchel SF, Menke MN. Oocyte cryopreservation in a transgender male adolescent. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(9):886–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hipp HS, et al. Oocyte cryopreservation in adolescent women. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2019;32(4):377–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Rivas Leonel EC, Lucci CM, Amorim CA. Cryopreservation of human ovarian tissue: a review. Transfus Med Hemother. 2019;46(3):173–181.

  22. Preservation EGGoFF et al. ESHRE guideline: female fertility preservation. Hum Reprod Open. 2020;2020(4):hoaa052.

  23. Curchoe CL, Bormann CL. Artificial intelligence and machine learning for human reproduction and embryology presented at ASRM and ESHRE 2018. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36(4):591–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Curchoe CL, et al. Predictive modeling in reproductive medicine: where will the future of artificial intelligence research take us? Fertil Steril. 2020;114(5):934–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Trolice MP, Curchoe C, Quaas AM. Artificial intelligence-the future is now. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021;38(7):1607–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Curchoe CL. All models are wrong, but some are useful. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020;37(10):2389–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Olsen J, et al. The Danish national birth cohort–its background, structure and aim. Scand J Public Health. 2001;29(4):300–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Andersen AN, Westergaard HB, Olsen J. The Danish in vitro fertilisation (IVF) register. Dan Med Bull. 1999;46(4):357–60.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Luke B et al. Risk of severe maternal morbidity by maternal fertility status: a US study in 8 states. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;220(2):195 e1–195 e12.

  30. Wilkinson J, Stocking K. Study design flaws and statistical challenges in evaluating fertility treatments. Reprod Fertil. 2021;2(2):C9–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Bird CE. Underfunding of research in women’s health issues is the biggest missed opportunity in health care. 2022. https://www.rand.org/blog/2022/02/underfunding-of-research-in-womens-health-issues-is.html

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ART Compass, Newport Beach, CA, USA

    Carol Lynn Curchoe

  2. McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Oishika Tarafdar

  3. Department of Biosciences, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK

    Marie Claire Aquilina

  4. Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA

    David B. Seifer

Authors
  1. Carol Lynn Curchoe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Oishika Tarafdar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marie Claire Aquilina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David B. Seifer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carol Lynn Curchoe.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

CLC is the founder of ART Compass, a Fertility Guidance Technology, a big data and artificial intelligence software platform for IVF lab management. OT, MCA, and DBS have nothing to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 85.4 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Curchoe, C.L., Tarafdar, O., Aquilina, M.C. et al. SART CORS IVF registry: looking to the past to shape future perspectives. J Assist Reprod Genet 39, 2607–2616 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-022-02634-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-022-02634-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation