Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27814762›Full record

SynthesisReproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E2016

Risk of adverse pregnancy and perinatal outcomes after high technology infertility treatment: a comprehensive systematic review.

Stefano Palomba, Roy Homburg, Susanna Santagni, Giovanni Battista La Sala, Raoul Orvieto

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Increased rate ofbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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

5 authors.

Stefano PalombaCenter of Reproductive Medicine and Surgery, Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova (ASMN)-Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS), Viale Risorgimento 80, 42123, Reggio Emilia, Italy. stefanopalomba@tin.it.
Roy HomburgHomerton Fertility Unit, Homerton University Hospital, Homerton Row, London, UK.
Susanna SantagniCenter of Reproductive Medicine and Surgery, Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova (ASMN)-Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS), Viale Risorgimento 80, 42123, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Giovanni Battista La SalaCenter of Reproductive Medicine and Surgery, Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova (ASMN)-Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS), Viale Risorgimento 80, 42123, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Raoul OrvietoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chaim Sheba Medical Center (Tel Hashomer), Ramat Gan, Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the literature, there is growing evidence that subfertile patients who conceived after infertility treatments have an increased risk of pregnancy and perinatal complications and this is particularly true for patients who conceived through use of high technology infertility treatments. Moreover, high technology infertility treatments include many concomitant clinical and biological risk factors. This review aims to summarize in a systematic fashion the current evidence regarding the relative effect of the different procedures for high technology infertility treatments on the risk of adverse pregnancy and perinatal outcome. A literature search up to August 2016 was performed in IBSS, SocINDEX, Institute for Scientific Information, PubMed, Web of Science and Google Scholar and an evidence-based hierarchy was used to determine which articles to include and analyze. Data on prepregnancy maternal factors, low technology interventions, specific procedures for male factor, ovarian tissue/ovary and uterus transplantation, and chromosomal abnormalities and malformations of the offspring were excluded. The available evidences were analyzed assessing the level and the quality of evidence according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system, respectively. Current review highlights that every single procedure of high technology infertility treatments can play a crucial role in increasing the risk of pregnancy and perinatal complications. Due to the suboptimal level and quality of the current evidence, further well-designed studies are needed.

Indexed as

Perinatal MortalityCryopreservationEmbryo TransferEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleFertilization in VitroHumansInfant, NewbornInfertilityPregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsPregnancy OutcomePreimplantation DiagnosisReproductive Techniques, AssistedRisk FactorsVitrificationARTComplicationsInfertilityObstetricPregnancySubfertility

Identifiers

PMID27814762
PMCPMC5097409

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.