Background: The purpose of this study was evaluating the relationship between fatty acid (FA) intakes and the Assisted Reproductive Technique (ART) out-comes in infertile women. Methods: In this descriptive longitudinal study, a validated food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) was used to measure dietary intakes among 217 women with primary infertility seeking ART treatments at Isfahan Fertility and Infertili-ty Center, Isfahan, Iran. The average number of total and metaphase II (MII) oocytes, the fertilization rate, the ratio of good and bad quality embryo and bio-chemical and clinical pregnancy were assessed. Analyses were performed using mean, standard deviation, Chi-square test, ANOVA, ANCOVA, logistic regres-sion. Results: A total of 140 women were finally included in the study. There was a positive relationship between the average number of total and MII oocytes and the amount of total fatty acids (TFAs), saturated fatty acids (SFAs), monoun-saturated fatty acids (MUFAs), polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), linoleic ac-ids, linolenic acids, and oleic acids intakes, while eicosapentaenoic acids (EPAs) and docosahexaenoic acids (DHAs) intakes had an inverse relationship. Consuming more amounts of TFAs, SFAs, PUFAs, MUFAs, linoleic acids, and oleic acids was associated with the lower fertilization rate, whereas the con-sumption of linolenic acids and EPAs increased the fertilization rate. The ratio of good quality embryo was directly affected by the amount of PUFAs intakes. Additionally, there was a negative correlation between the amount of SFAs in-takes and the number of pregnant women. Conclusion: TFAs, SFA, PUFA, and MUFA intakes could have both beneficial and adverse impacts on ART outcomes.

No abstract

Background Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) remains a leading cause of maternal mortality and morbidity worldwide, and the rate is increasing. Using a reliable predictive model could identify those at risk, support management and treatment, and improve maternal outcomes. Aims To systematically identify and appraise existing prognostic models for PPH and ascertain suitability for clinical use. Materials and Methods MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched using combinations of terms and synonyms, including ‘postpartum haemorrhage’, ‘prognostic model’, and ‘risk factors’. Observational or experimental studies describing a prognostic model for risk of PPH, published in English, were included. The Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies checklist informed data extraction and the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool guided analysis. Results Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria after screening 1612 records. All studies were hospital settings from eight different countries. Models were developed for women who experienced vaginal birth (n = 7), caesarean birth (n = 2), any type of birth (n = 2), hypertensive disorders (n = 1) and those with placental abnormalities (n = 4). All studies were at high risk of bias due to use of inappropriate analysis methods or omission of important statistical considerations or suboptimal validation. Conclusions No existing prognostic models for PPH are ready for clinical application. Future research is needed to externally validate existing models and potentially develop a new model that is reliable and applicable to clinical practice.

Background Infertility stigma is a hidden burden that overshadows the dimensions of reproductive and sexual health in infertile women. The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate the psychometric properties of the Female Infertility Stigma Instrument (ISI-F). Methods This mixed method study with sequential exploratory design was conducted in qualitative and quantitative phases. In the first phase, the initial item pool of the Female Infertility Stigma Instrument (ISI-F) was generated using in-depth interviews. In the quantitative phase, psychometric properties of the ISI-f including content, face and construct validity, as well as reliability (internal consistency and stability) were assessed. Exploratory factor analysis was performed on the collected data from 300 infertile women for evaluation of construct validity. Data was analyzed using SPSS version 20. This study has followed the Mixed Methods Article Reporting Standards checklist. Results The final version of ISI-F had 20 items. Total CVI and CVR were 0.94 and 0.87, respectively. Explanatory factor analysis identified 3 main factors that explained 54.013% of the variance. These factors consisted of stigma profile (7 items), self-stigma (6 items) and escaping from stigma (7 items). Internal consistency and stability of the ISI-F has been approved by Cronbach’s alpha, McDonald's Omega (0.909, 0.916) and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC = 0.878). Conclusion The Female Infertility Stigma Instrument (ISI-F) is a valid and reliable tool for evaluation of the perceived female infertility stigma, that was developed in this study.