Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30547777›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2018

Obstetric and perinatal outcomes of singleton pregnancies conceived via assisted reproductive technology complicated by gestational diabetes mellitus: a prospective cohort study.

Azam Kouhkan, Mohammad E Khamseh, Reihaneh Pirjani, Ashraf Moini, Arezoo Arabipoor, Saman Maroufizadeh, Roya Hosseini, Hamid Reza Baradaran

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
9.8field-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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Perinatal complications and neonatal outcomes inFrontiers in endocrinology · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Azam KouhkanEndocrine Research Center, Institute of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Iran University of Medical Sciences (IUMS), Firouzeh St., South Vali- Asr Ave., Vali- Asr Sq., Tehran, 15937-16615, Iran.
Mohammad E KhamsehEndocrine Research Center, Institute of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Iran University of Medical Sciences (IUMS), Firouzeh St., South Vali- Asr Ave., Vali- Asr Sq., Tehran, 15937-16615, Iran.
Reihaneh PirjaniDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Arash Women's Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Ashraf MoiniDepartment of Endocrinology and Female Infertility, Reproductive Biomedicine Research Center, Royan Institute for Reproductive Biomedicine, ACECR, Number 12, East Hafez Avenue, Bani Hashem Street, Resalat Highway, Tehran, 16635-148, Iran.
Arezoo ArabipoorDepartment of Endocrinology and Female Infertility, Reproductive Biomedicine Research Center, Royan Institute for Reproductive Biomedicine, ACECR, Number 12, East Hafez Avenue, Bani Hashem Street, Resalat Highway, Tehran, 16635-148, Iran.
Saman MaroufizadehDepartment of Epidemiology and Reproductive Health, Reproductive Epidemiology Research Center, Royan Institute for Reproductive Biomedicine, ACECR, Tehran, Iran.
Roya HosseiniDepartment of Endocrinology and Female Infertility, Reproductive Biomedicine Research Center, Royan Institute for Reproductive Biomedicine, ACECR, Number 12, East Hafez Avenue, Bani Hashem Street, Resalat Highway, Tehran, 16635-148, Iran. rohosseini@yahoo.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7963-705X
Hamid Reza BaradaranEndocrine Research Center, Institute of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Iran University of Medical Sciences (IUMS), Firouzeh St., South Vali- Asr Ave., Vali- Asr Sq., Tehran, 15937-16615, Iran. baradaran.hr@iums.ac.ir.
Royan Institute · IRIran University of Medical Sciences · IRTehran University of Medical Sciences · IRUniversity of Aberdeen · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGrowing evidence indicates that the risk of obstetric and perinatal outcomes is higher in women with assisted reproductive technology (ART). However, there is little known about pregnancy related complications and co-morbidity in gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) following singleton pregnancies achieved by ART in comparison with spontaneous conception (SC).

methodsTwo hundred sixty singleton pregnant women conceived by ART and 314 pregnant women conceived by spontaneous conception (SC) were participated in this prospective cohort study. All participants were enrolled after GDM screening through one-step oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) and then grouped into GDM and non-GDM groups. Women were followed for pregnancy outcomes including pregnancy-induced hypertension (PIH), preeclampsia, antepartum hemorrhage (APH), cesarean section (CS), preterm birth (PTB), intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR), being small or large for gestational age (SGA or LGA), macrosomia, low birth weight (LBW), respiratory distress, neonatal hypoglycemia, NICU admission and perinatal mortality from antenatal visits to delivery. Confounding factors were adjusted in logistic regression model in order to estimate adjusted odds ratios (aORs).

resultsAmong 260 ART and 314 SC, 135 and 152 women were GDM women, respectively. Higher maternal age and pre-gravid BMI, shorter duration of gestation and lower gestational weight gain were observed in GDM groups (ART-GDM and SC-GDM) compared to those of the SC group. ART-GDM group had a higher risk (95% confidence interval) of obstetric complications including PIH [aOR:7.04 (2.24-22.15)], preeclampsia [aOR:7.78 (1.62-37.47)], APH [aOR:3.46 (1.28-9.33)], emergency CS [aOR:2.64 (1.43-4.88)], and perinatal outcomes such as PTB [aOR:3.89 (1.51-10.10)], LBW [aOR:3.11 (1.04-9.30)] and NICU admission [aOR:4.36 (1.82-10.45)], as well as neonatal hypoglycemia [aOR: 4.91 (1.50-16.07)], compared to SC group. SC-GDM group showed a higher risk of PIH [aOR: 4.12 (1.31-12.89)], emergency CS [aOR: 2.01 (1.09-3.73] and LGA [aOR: 5.20 (1.07-25.20)], compared to SC group. Additionally, ART group had a higher risk of PIH [aOR: 3.46(1.02-11.68), preeclampsia 5.29 (1.03-27.09), and NICU admission [aOR: 2.53 (1.05-6.09)] compared to SC. Insulin requirement (41.8% vs. 25.7%) was significantly higher in ART-GDM group compared to SC-GDM group.

conclusionThe findings of this study suggest that GDM occurring after ART conception increases the risk of adverse obstetric and perinatal outcomes.

Indexed as

Diabetes, GestationalHypertension, Pregnancy-InducedObstetric Labor ComplicationsPregnancy ComplicationsAdultCohort StudiesFemaleFetal Growth RetardationHumansInfant, NewbornIranMaternal AgePerinatal MortalityPre-EclampsiaPregnancyPregnancy OutcomeAssisted reproductive technologyComplicationsGestational diabetes mellitusNeonatalObstetricPerinatal

Identifiers

PMID30547777
PMCPMC6295020
OpenAlexW2904708284

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.