Trial reportThe Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism2026
Lifestyle intervention before and during fertility treatment in women with obesity or with overweight and PCOS-a RCT.
Trial report in The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
contextLifestyle interventions are recommended for women with obesity and infertility, but trial evidence is scarce, and studies have not investigated interventions that continue during fertility treatment.
objectiveEvaluate effectiveness of a lifestyle intervention compared with usual care on fertility outcomes in women with obesity and infertility.
designThe Obesity-Fertility randomized controlled trial (RCT), at an academic fertility clinic, included 127 women aged 18 to 40 years with infertility and obesity (body mass index ≥30 kg/m2, or ≥27 kg/m2 with polycystic ovary syndrome [PCOS]), excluding those unlikely to conceive naturally. The intervention group (IG) received a 6-month lifestyle intervention alone (individual follow-up with a dietician and kinesiologist, and group sessions) before adding fertility treatments. The control group (CG) received usual fertility care directly. Rate of live birth conceived within 18 months of randomization was analyzed.
resultsCompared to CG, the IG lost more weight (-3.21% ± 4.73% vs -0.40% ± 3.66%, P = .003) and waist circumference (-2.62 ± 4.46 cm vs -0.23 ± 3.81 cm, P = .01) at 6 months. The live-birth rate was 44.4% in the IG (n = 63) vs 35.9% in the CG (n = 64) (risk ratio [RR] = 1.24 [95% CI 0.81-1.90]). In IG vs CG, clinical pregnancy rates were 52.4% vs 37.5% (RR = 1.40 [0.94-2.07]) and natural pregnancy rates were 27.0% vs 12.5% (RR = 2.16 [1.01-4.64]).
conclusionCompared with usual care, a lifestyle intervention alone for 6 months and then combined with fertility treatments did not increase the 18-month rate of pregnancies leading to a live birth, but significantly increased natural pregnancy rates, potentially reducing the need for costly assisted reproduction in this population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.