Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27007875›Full record

SynthesisJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2016

Is oocyte donation a risk factor for preeclampsia? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Anna Blázquez, Désirée García, Amelia Rodríguez, Rita Vassena, Francesc Figueras, Valérie Vernaeve

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
21.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 100 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Guideline
  6. Pooled it
  7. Guideline
  8. Pooled it
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Immunologic aspects of preeclampsia.AJOG global reports · 2024
    Review
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Anna BlázquezClínica EUGIN, Travessera de les Corts 322, Barcelona, 08029, Spain.
Désirée GarcíaFundació Privada EUGIN, Barcelona, 08029, Spain.
Amelia RodríguezClínica EUGIN, Travessera de les Corts 322, Barcelona, 08029, Spain.
Rita VassenaClínica EUGIN, Travessera de les Corts 322, Barcelona, 08029, Spain. rvassena@eugin.es.
Francesc FiguerasBCNatal - Barcelona Center for Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine (Hospital Clínic and Hospital Sant Joan de Deu), IDIBAPS, University of Barcelona and Centre for Biomedical Research on Rare Diseases (CIBER-ER), Barcelona, Spain.
Valérie VernaeveClínica EUGIN, Travessera de les Corts 322, Barcelona, 08029, Spain.
Centre d'Higiene Mental Les Corts (Spain) · ESFundació Privada Centre CIM · ESUniversitat de Barcelona · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe objective of this meta-analysis is to determine whether there is a higher incidence of preeclampsia (PE) in pregnancies achieved by oocyte donation (OD) compared with pregnancies achieved by in vitro fertilization with autologous oocytes (IVF).

methodsA systematic review was performed to identify relevant studies published from January 1994 until April 2015 with at least an abstract in English using PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge, and clinicaltrials.gov. The 11 studies included in this systematic review were retrospective and prospective cohort studies of women reporting results on the association between oocyte donation vs. in vitro fertilization (exposure) and preeclampsia (outcome).

resultsOocyte donation is a risk factor for the development of PE compared to IVF cycles, with a weighted OR of 3.12 under a fixed effects method (FEM: no heterogeneity between the studies). The weighted OR under a random effects model was 2.9 (REM: heterogeneity between the studies). The meta-regression analysis showed that neither multiple pregnancies (estimate = 0.08; p = 0.19) nor patient age (estimate = -2.29; p = 0.13) significantly explained the variability of the effect of oocyte donation on PE. Q statistic was 12.78 (p = 0.237), suggesting absence of heterogeneity between the studies.

conclusionsPregnancies achieved by oocyte donation confer a threefold increase in the likelihood of developing PE than those achieved by in vitro fertilization with own oocytes. Physicians should be aware of this risk in order to both counsel patients and monitor pregnancies accordingly.

Indexed as

FemaleFertilization in VitroHumansOocyte DonationOocytesPre-EclampsiaPregnancyPregnancy OutcomeRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsInduced hypertensionIn vitro fertilizationOocyte donationPreeclampsiaPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID27007875
PMCPMC4930777
OpenAlexW2310033472

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.