Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29635479›Full record

ArticleHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2018

A practical blueprint to systematically study life-long health consequences of novel medically assisted reproductive treatments.

Callista L Mulder, Joana B Serrano, Lisa A E Catsburg, Tessa J Roseboom, Sjoerd Repping, Ans M M van Pelt

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Callista L MulderCenter for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam Research Institute Reproduction and Development, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Joana B SerranoCenter for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam Research Institute Reproduction and Development, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Lisa A E CatsburgCenter for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam Research Institute Reproduction and Development, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Tessa J RoseboomDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Academic Medical Centre, Meibergdeef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Sjoerd ReppingCenter for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam Research Institute Reproduction and Development, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ans M M van PeltCenter for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam Research Institute Reproduction and Development, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
University of Amsterdam · NLAcademic Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In medicine, safety and efficacy are the two pillars on which the implementation of novel treatments rest. To protect the patient from unnecessary or unsafe treatments, usually, a stringent path of (pre) clinical testing is followed before a treatment is introduced into routine patient care. However, in reproductive medicine several techniques have been clinically introduced without elaborate preclinical studies. Moreover, novel reproductive techniques may harbor safety risks not only for the patients undergoing treatment, but also for the offspring conceived through these techniques. If preclinical (animal) studies were performed, efficacy and functionality the upper hand. When a new medically assisted reproduction (MAR) treatment was proven effective (i.e. if it resulted in live birth) the treatment was often rapidly implemented in the clinic. For IVF, the first study on the long-term health of IVF children was published a decade after its clinical implementation. In more recent years, prospective follow-up studies have been conducted that provided the opportunity to study the health of large groups of children derived from different reproductive techniques. Although such studies have indicated differences between children conceived through MAR and children conceived naturally, results are often difficult to interpret due to the observational nature of these studies (and the associated risk of confounding factors, e.g. subfertility of the parents), differences in definitions of clinical outcome measures, lack of uniformity in assessment protocols and heterogeneity of the underlying reasons for fertility treatment. With more novel MARs waiting at the horizon, there is a need for a framework on how to assess safety of novel reproductive techniques in a preclinical (animal) setting before they are clinically implemented. In this article, we provide a blueprint for preclinical testing of safety and health of offspring generated by novel MARs using a mouse model involving an array of tests that comprise the entire lifespan. We urge scientists to perform the proposed extensive preclinical tests for novel reproductive techniques with the goal to acquire knowledge on efficacy and the possible health effects of to-be implemented reproductive techniques to safeguard quality of novel MARs.

Indexed as

FemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansInfant, NewbornLongitudinal StudiesPregnancyPregnancy OutcomeProspective StudiesReproductive Techniques, AssistedResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID29635479
PMCPMC5925779
OpenAlexW2795485793

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.