ArticleJournal of epidemiology2013
Concordance rates of birth defects after assisted reproductive technology among 17 258 Japanese twin pregnancies: a nationwide survey, 2004-2009.
Article in Journal of epidemiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence, trend, and associated risk factors for cleft lip with/without cleft palate: a national study on live births from 2016 to 2021.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Insights from one thousand cloned dogs.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- A donor twin discordant with Peters anomaly in a twin-twin transfusion syndrome case: a case report.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2020Article
- Incidence and anatomy of cardiac malformations in children conceived by assisted reproduction techniques - A review.JBRA assisted reproduction · 2014Review
- Maternal age and birth defects after the use of assisted reproductive technology in Japan, 2004-2010.International journal of women's health · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMost twins after assisted reproductive technology (ART) are dizygotic. Analysis of dizygotic twin pairs is useful in assessing familial aggregation in the development of birth defects.
methodsUsing nationwide post-ART data from the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology, recurrence risk ratios (RRRs)-defined as probandwise concordance rates of birth defects in twins divided by the prevalence of birth defects in the general population-were calculated as indicators of familial aggregation. Birth defects were then reclassified according to the ICD-10 categories corresponding to codes Q00-Q99. From 2004 to 2009, there were 17 258 twin pregnancies.
resultsAt least 1 birth defect was noted in 236 twin pairs: 11 concordant and 225 discordant pairs. Regarding major organ systems, high probandwise concordance rates were observed for congenital malformations of eye, ear, face, and neck (11.8%), cleft lip and cleft palate (10.5%), congenital malformations of the nervous system (9.8%), and other congenital malformations of the digestive system (9.5%). High RRRs were observed for congenital malformations of eye, ear, face, and neck (RRR = 233), specifically other congenital malformations of the ear (RRR = 449); congenital malformations of the great arteries (RRR = 235), specifically those of the patent ductus arteriosus (RRR = 530); and for cleft lip and cleft palate (RRR = 208), specifically cleft palate with cleft lip (RRR = 609). The probandwise concordance rate of any birth defect (8.9%) was nearly identical to the approximated recurrence risk of sib-pairs (8.8%), which assumed multifactorial inheritance.
conclusionsThe present findings suggest that familial aggregation is a factor in some birth defects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.