Every year, thousands of people turn to medicine for help having a baby. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has just published its official surveillance report, tallying up all the assisted reproductive technology procedures—like IVF—that were performed in the United States in 2018. This kind of report is essentially a headcount. It tells us the scale of fertility treatment use in a given year, which is important for understanding public health trends and resource needs. The report does not follow individual patients or track what happened after their procedures. It doesn't tell us how many treatments led to pregnancies or births, nor does it report on any safety issues or complications. Think of it as an annual census for fertility clinics, giving us a crucial baseline number but leaving many personal stories and outcomes uncounted.
CDC surveillance report details assisted reproductive technology procedures performed in 2018How many families used fertility treatments in 2018? The CDC just counted
AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work
This is a surveillance report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) describing assisted reproductive technology (ART) procedures performed in the United States in 2018. The report does not specify the study population, sample size, or provide any comparator group. It focuses on reporting the occurrence of ART procedures.
No specific results, effect sizes, absolute numbers, or statistical measures (p-values, confidence intervals) are reported for clinical outcomes. The main finding is the administrative reporting of procedures performed. Safety and tolerability data, including adverse events, serious adverse events, and discontinuations, are not reported.
Key limitations include the purely descriptive nature of the report, the absence of patient-level or outcome data, and the lack of any comparative analysis. The funding sources and potential conflicts of interest are also not reported. The practice relevance is limited to providing a high-level snapshot of ART procedure volume for a single year, without offering evidence on efficacy, safety, or patient selection.
View Original Abstract ↓
Intrawound tobramycin plus vancomycin did not reduce deep infection risk compared with vancomycin alone in high-risk tibial fractures
Adding Antibiotics to Bone Surgery Didn't Lower Infection Risk
Related in Infectious Disease
From Other Specialties
