ABSTRACT
Telemedicine is being applied in assisted reproduction technology (ART) to provide remote consultations, monitoring and support for patients. This study aimed to evaluate the potential advantages of telemedicine in ART treatment in the form of virtual consultations. Studies in which patients were using telemedicine during ART treatment were identified from four scientific databases (PudMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science). The success of fertility treatments was compared between telemedicine and in-office care, and patient satisfaction with ART through telemedicine was assessed. Eleven studies, comprising 4697 patients, were identified. Quality assessment (Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal and revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tools) revealed an acceptable risk of bias for both randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Using a fixed-effects model, telemedicine was comparable to in-person care regarding the pregnancy rate achieved (odds ratio 1.02, 95% confidence intervals 0.83-1.26, Pâ¯=â¯0.83). A Q-test suggested that all the included studies were homogeneous. Patients who received telemedicine during fertility treatment reported a high level of satisfaction (91%, 95% confidence intervals 80-96%). Egger's test confirmed that no publication bias was found. Telemedicine could serve as a complementary tool during fertility treatment to facilitate patients' satisfaction and overcome some practical problems without compromising treatment outcomes. Future studies should continue exploring the potential applications of telemedicine in assisted reproduction.
Subject(s)
Patient Satisfaction , Reproductive Techniques, Assisted , Telemedicine , Humans , Female , Pregnancy , Pregnancy RateABSTRACT
[This corrects the article DOI: 10.7759/cureus.52256.].
ABSTRACT
Objective Recurrent implantation failure (RIF) is a significant challenge in assisted reproduction. Genratest has emerged as a potential tool to identify the displaced window of implantation (WOI). This study aimed to evaluate the impact of this test on the pregnancy outcomes of RIF patients. Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on 143 RIF patients who were categorized into two groups: the personalized embryo transfer (pET, n=69) group and standard embryo transfer (sET, n=74) group. The main measured outcomes were clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage, and live birth rates. Results Genratest effectively diagnoses the displaced WOI in 90% of RIF patients. The pET group exhibited a higher rate of clinical pregnancy (n=36/69, 52.2%) compared to the sET group (n=35/74, 47.3%), but this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.679). Ongoing pregnancy rates were comparable between the pET (n=28/69, 40.6%) and the sET (n=30/74, 40.5%) groups (p=0.996). Live birth rates showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups (n=26/69, 37.7% versus n=22/74, 29.7%, p=0.407). Miscarriage rates were similar in both groups (n=9/69, 13% versus n=11/74, 14.9%, p=0.942). Conclusions pET based on the results of the Genratest did not show a significant improvement in pregnancy outcomes, including clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, live birth, or miscarriage rates. Further research is needed to identify the role of Genratest in RIF patients.