Trial reportJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2018
Neonatal outcomes among twins stratified by method of conception: secondary analysis of maternal fetal medicine (MFMU) network database.
Trial report in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2018. 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.
- Heterogeneous offspring growth in spontaneous versus in vitro fertilization pregnancies: a retrospective cohort study.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Article
- The Impact of Conception Method, Chorionicity, Amnionicity, Fetal Growth Types, and Birth Order on the Postnatal Status of Twins Born Vaginally and by Cesarean Section: A Retrospective Analysis of Data from a University Centre of Obstetrics and Gynecology (1990-2017).Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Perinatal and pediatric outcomes associated with the use of fertility treatment: a population-based retrospective cohort study in Ontario, Canada.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Article
- Concordance of the risk of neonatal respiratory morbidity assessed by quantitative ultrasound lung texture analysis in fetuses of twin pregnancies.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- [Influence of twin pregnancy by assisted reproductive technology on neonatal outcomes].Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate whether twin pregnancies conceived by different forms of fertility treatments are associated with adverse neonatal outcomes and to examine the difference in maternal and obstetrical characteristics between patients.
methodsOur study was a retrospective analysis of twin pregnancies conceived by fertility treatments from a prospectively collected database. Treatments were stratified into two groups: group 1 (ART) consisted of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), and group 2 (non-ART) included intrauterine insemination (IUI) and ovulation induction (OI). Composite neonatal morbidity included respiratory distress syndrome, intraventricular hemorrhage, leukomalacia, chronic lung disease, and death prior to discharge.
resultsThere were 460 neonates in our study; among them, 67% (n = 310) were in group 1, and 33% (n = 150) in group 2. Group 1 patients were more likely to be older (p = 0.004), nulliparous (p = 0.01), delivered twins with lower birth weights (2278 g ± 605 vs. 2427 ± 519, p = 0.009), and had more deliveries < 32 weeks gestation (p = 0.001). In multivariable Poisson regression model, only neonatal intensive care unit admission rate was increased for group 1 twins (aRR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.003-1.60).
conclusionsAfter adjusting for confounders, twins conceived via ART compared to non-ART had similar neonatal outcomes. These data can help when counseling this patient population and assist in planning larger prospective cohorts.
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.