Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28292615›Full record

ArticleFertility and sterility2017

Perinatal outcomes among singletons after assisted reproductive technology with single-embryo or double-embryo transfer versus no assisted reproductive technology.

Angela S Martin, Jeani Chang, Yujia Zhang, Jennifer F Kawwass, Sheree L Boulet, Patricia McKane, Dana Bernson, Dmitry M Kissin, Denise J Jamieson, States Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (SMART) Collaborative

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Fertility and sterility, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
9.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Vasodilators for women undergoing fertility treatment.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Vasodilators for women undergoing fertility treatment.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance - United States, 2018.Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Surveillance summaries (Washington, D.C. : 2002) · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Comparison of Clinical Pregnancy Outcomes after Fresh and Frozen Embryo Transfer.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Angela S MartinEmory University Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Atlanta, Georgia; Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Electronic address: angela.matlack@gmail.com.
Jeani ChangDivision of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Yujia ZhangDivision of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Jennifer F KawwassEmory University Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Atlanta, Georgia; Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Sheree L BouletDivision of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Patricia McKaneMaternal & Child Health Epidemiology Section, Lifecourse Epidemiology and Genomics Division, Michigan Department of Health & Human Services, Lansing, Michigan.
Dana BernsonMassachusetts Department of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Dmitry M KissinEmory University Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Atlanta, Georgia; Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Denise J JamiesonEmory University Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Atlanta, Georgia; Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
States Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (SMART) Collaborative
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention · USEmory University · USNational Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion · USMassachusetts Department of Public Health · USMichigan Department of Health and Human Services · US

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine outcomes of singleton pregnancies conceived without assisted reproductive technology (non-ART) compared with singletons conceived with ART by elective single-embryo transfer (eSET), nonelective single-embryo transfer (non-eSET), and double-embryo transfer with the establishment of 1 (DET -1) or ≥2 (DET ≥2) early fetal heartbeats.

designRetrospective cohort using linked ART surveillance data and vital records from Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Connecticut.

settingNot applicable. PATIENT(S): Singleton live-born infants. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Preterm birth (PTB <37 weeks), very preterm birth (VPTB <32 weeks), small for gestational age birth weight (<10th percentile), low birth weight (LBW <2,500 g), very low birth weight (VLBW <1,500 g), 5-minute Apgar score <7, and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission. RESULT(S): After controlling for maternal characteristics and employing a weighted propensity score approach, we found that singletons conceived after eSET were less likely to have a 5-minute Apgar <7 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.33; 95% CI, 0.15-0.69) compared with non-ART singletons. There were no differences among outcomes between non-ART and non-eSET infants. We found that PTB, VPTB, LBW, and VLBW were more likely among DET -1 and DET ≥2 compared with non-ART infants, with the odds being higher for DET ≥2 (PTB aOR 1.58; 95% CI, 1.09-2.29; VPTB aOR 2.46; 95% CI, 1.20-5.04; LBW aOR 2.17; 95% CI, 1.24-3.79; VLBW aOR 3.67; 95% CI, 1.38-9.77). CONCLUSION(S): Compared with non-ART singletons, singletons born after eSET and non-eSET did not have increased risks whereas DET -1 and DET ≥2 singletons were more likely to have adverse perinatal outcomes.

Indexed as

Single Embryo TransferAdultApgar ScoreBirth WeightChi-Square DistributionDatabases, FactualEmbryo TransferFemaleFertilityFertilization in VitroGestational AgeHumansInfant, Low Birth WeightInfant, NewbornInfant, PrematureInfertilityAssisted reproductive technologydouble-embryo transferelective single-embryo transferin vitro fertilizationperinatal outcomes

Identifiers

PMID28292615
PMCPMC11350526
OpenAlexW2594384208

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.