Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30786865›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2019

Complications and adverse outcomes in pregnancy and childbirth among women who conceived by assisted reproductive technologies: a nationwide birth cohort study of Japan environment and children's study.

Chie Nagata, Limin Yang, Kiwako Yamamoto-Hanada, Hidetoshi Mezawa, Tadayuki Ayabe, Kazue Ishizuka, Mizuho Konishi, Yukihiro Ohya, Hirohisa Saito, Haruhiko Sago and 1 more

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

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
20.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 89 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  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

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Chie NagataDepartment of Education for Clinical Research, National Center for Child Health and Development, 2-10-1 Okura, Setagaya-ku, Tokyo, 157-8535, Japan.
Limin YangMedical Support Center for Japan Environment and Children's Study (JECS), National Center for Child Health and Development, 2-10-1 Okura, Setagaya-ku, Tokyo, 157-8535, Japan.
Kiwako Yamamoto-HanadaMedical Support Center for Japan Environment and Children's Study (JECS), National Center for Child Health and Development, 2-10-1 Okura, Setagaya-ku, Tokyo, 157-8535, Japan.
Hidetoshi MezawaMedical Support Center for Japan Environment and Children's Study (JECS), National Center for Child Health and Development, 2-10-1 Okura, Setagaya-ku, Tokyo, 157-8535, Japan.
Tadayuki AyabeMedical Support Center for Japan Environment and Children's Study (JECS), National Center for Child Health and Development, 2-10-1 Okura, Setagaya-ku, Tokyo, 157-8535, Japan.
Kazue IshizukaMedical Support Center for Japan Environment and Children's Study (JECS), National Center for Child Health and Development, 2-10-1 Okura, Setagaya-ku, Tokyo, 157-8535, Japan.
Mizuho KonishiMedical Support Center for Japan Environment and Children's Study (JECS), National Center for Child Health and Development, 2-10-1 Okura, Setagaya-ku, Tokyo, 157-8535, Japan.
Yukihiro OhyaMedical Support Center for Japan Environment and Children's Study (JECS), National Center for Child Health and Development, 2-10-1 Okura, Setagaya-ku, Tokyo, 157-8535, Japan.
Hirohisa SaitoMedical Support Center for Japan Environment and Children's Study (JECS), National Center for Child Health and Development, 2-10-1 Okura, Setagaya-ku, Tokyo, 157-8535, Japan.
Haruhiko SagoMedical Support Center for Japan Environment and Children's Study (JECS), National Center for Child Health and Development, 2-10-1 Okura, Setagaya-ku, Tokyo, 157-8535, Japan. sagou-h@ncchd.go.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9387-1849
Japan Environment & Children’s Study Group
National Center For Child Health and Development · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough pregnancies conceived by assisted reproductive technology (ART) have a higher risk of maternal/perinatal complications, the overall risk of adverse outcomes necessitating advanced obstetric care has not been closely examined. The present study aimed to assess and compare the risk of maternal/perinatal complications and adverse outcomes in pregnancy and childbirth conceived by ART with those conceived naturally.

methodsThis study was conducted as a part of the Japan environment and children's study (JECS), an ongoing nationwide birth cohort study in Japan. The risk of maternal/perinatal complications and adverse outcomes was assessed by mode of conception (natural conception, ovulation induction [OI] without ART, conventional in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer [IVF-ET], or intracytoplasmic sperm injection [ICSI]) using logistic regression and generalized estimating equations controlling for potential confounders.

resultsThe final dataset included women who conceived naturally (N = 90,506), by OI without ART (N = 3939), by conventional IVF-ET (N = 1476), and by ICSI (N = 1671). Compared with women who conceived naturally, those who conceived by conventional IVF-ET were at higher risk of placenta previa (adjusted OR 2.90 [95% CI 1.94, 4.34]), morbidly adherent placenta (6.85 [3.88, 12.13]), and pregnancy-induced hypertension (1.40 [1.10, 1.78]) whereas those who conceived by ICSI had a higher risk of placental abruption (2.16 [1.20, 3.88]) as well as placenta previa (2.01 [1.29, 3.13]) and morbidly adherent placenta (7.81 [4.56, 13.38]). Women who conceived by ART had a higher risk of blood transfusion (conventional IVF-ET: 3.85 [2.52, 5.88]; ICSI: 3.76 [2.49, 5.66]) and ICU admission (conventional IVF-ET: 2.58 [1.11, 6.01]; ICSI: 3.45 [1.68, 7.06]) even after controlling for potential confounders. Neonates conceived by ART had a higher risk of preterm birth (conventional IVF-ET: 1.42 [1.13, 1.78]; ICSI: 1.31 [1.05, 1.64]).

conclusionsWomen who conceived by ART had a higher risk of maternal/perinatal complications necessitating advanced obstetric care. Obstetricians should be aware of the increased risk of adverse outcomes among this population.

Indexed as

AdultCohort StudiesFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornJapanLogistic ModelsMaternal Health ServicesPatient Acceptance of Health CarePlacenta DiseasesPregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsPregnancy OutcomePremature BirthReproductive Techniques, AssistedRisk FactorsARTAssisted reproductive technologyBlood transfusionICSIIntensive care unitIntracytoplasmic sperm injectionsIn vitro fertilizationIVFOvulation inductionPlacental diseases

Identifiers

PMID30786865
PMCPMC6381747
OpenAlexW2921069585

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.