接受人工受孕的妇女往往承受着巨大的精神压力，并且还进一步担心精神压力会降低受孕成功率。英国一项最新研究说，接受人工受孕的妇女大可不必担心，因为从统计上看精神压力大和压力小的妇女接受人工受孕的成功率没有明显差别。
英国卡迪夫大学等机构研究人员在新一期《英国医学杂志》上报告说，为了探清精神压力究竟会不会对人工受孕成功率产生影响，他们回顾了该领域的10多份研究，并调查了多个国家的3000多名曾接受过人工受孕的妇女的资料。
这些妇女在人工受孕前都参加了精神压力测试，包括测试焦虑、紧张、抑郁等方面特征。后来的人工受孕结果则显示，精神压力大和压力小的妇女在人工受孕成功率上没有明显差别。
Emotional distress in infertile women and failure of assisted reproductive technologies: meta-analysis of prospective psychosocial studies
Abstract
Objective To examine whether pretreatment emotional distress in women is associated with achievement of pregnancy after a cycle of assisted reproductive technology.
Design Meta-analysis of prospective psychosocial studies.
Data sources PubMed, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, PsychNET, ISI Web of Knowledge, and ISI Web of Science were searched for articles published from 1985 to March 2010 (inclusive). We also undertook a hand search of reference lists and contacted 29 authors. Eligible studies were prospective studies reporting a test of the association between pretreatment emotional distress (anxiety or depression) and pregnancy in women undergoing a single cycle of assisted reproductive technology.
Review methods Two authors independently assessed the studies for eligibility and quality (using criteria adapted from the Newcastle-Ottawa quality scale) and extracted data. Authors contributed additional data not included in original publication.
Results Fourteen studies with 3583 infertile women undergoing a cycle of fertility treatment were included in the meta-analysis. The effect size used was the standardised mean difference (adjusted for small sample size) in pretreatment anxiety or depression (priority on anxiety where both measured) between women who achieved a pregnancy (defined as a positive pregnancy test, positive fetal heart scan, or live birth) and those who did not. Pretreatment emotional distress was not associated with treatment outcome after a cycle of assisted reproductive technology (standardised mean difference ?0.04, 95% confidence interval ?0.11 to 0.03 (fixed effects model); heterogeneity I2=14%, P=0.30). Subgroup analyses according to previous experience of assisted reproductive technology, composition of the not pregnant group, and timing of the emotional assessment were not significant. The effect size did not vary according to study quality, but a significant subgroup analysis on timing of the pregnancy test, a contour enhanced funnel plot, and Egger’s test indicated the presence of moderate publication bias.
Conclusions The findings of this meta-analysis should reassure women and doctors that emotional distress caused by fertility problems or other life events co-occurring with treatment will not compromise the chance of becoming pregnant.
