Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31466699›Full record

ArticleFertility and sterility2019

Health outcomes for Massachusetts infants after fresh versus frozen embryo transfer.

Sunah S Hwang, Dmitry Dukhovny, Daksha Gopal, Howard Cabral, Hafsatou Diop, Charles C Coddington, Judy E Stern

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Fertility and sterility, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Cryopreservation, cryoprotectants, and potential risk of epigenetic alteration.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2024
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

7 authors.

Sunah S HwangSection of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado. Electronic address: Sunah.hwang@childrenscolorado.org.
Dmitry DukhovnyDepartment of Pediatrics, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon.
Daksha GopalDepartment of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Howard CabralDepartment of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Hafsatou DiopOffice of Data Translation, Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Charles C CoddingtonDivision of Reproductive Medicine, Carolinas Medical Center/Atrium Health, Charlotte, North Carolina.
Judy E SternDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Pathology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock.

Funding

Women's Health After Assisted Reproductive Technology: A Population-Based StudyR01HD067270 · NICHD · DARTMOUTH-HITCHCOCK CLINIC · PI DIOP, HAFSATOU, STERN, JUDY E · 2011 to 2020
$7.4M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD067270
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare neonatal health outcomes after fresh versus frozen ET (FET).

designRetrospective analysis of a population-based database of linked clinically assisted reproductive technology (ART) data with state vital records. Multivariable logistic regression was used to model the association between deliveries from fresh versus FET and adverse health outcomes, controlling for maternal characteristics.

settingNot applicable. PATIENT(S): Live-born singleton infants born to Massachusetts women who conceived by fresh or FET after ART using autologous oocytes between July 1, 2004, and December 31, 2013. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Preterm birth, low birth weight, neonatal mortality, birth defects, organ system conditions. RESULT(S): Compared with infants conceived from fresh embryos, those born to mothers who underwent FET were less likely to be small for gestational age (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.70) and low birth weight (AOR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59-0.88) but more likely to be large for gestational age (AOR = 1.47; 95% CI, 1.26-1.70) and to experience greater odds of infectious disease (AOR = 1.46; 95% CI, 1.03-2.06), respiratory (AOR = 1.23; 95% CI, 1.07-1.41), and neurologic (AOR = 1.32; 95% CI, 1.04-1.68) conditions. There were no statistically significant differences in preterm birth, neonatal mortality, birth defects, cardiovascular, hematologic, and gastrointestinal/feeding conditions, and for infants ≥ 35 weeks, no statistically significant differences in prolonged hospital stay (>3 days for vaginal delivery, >5 days for cesarean). CONCLUSION(S): Compared with infants conceived from fresh ET, those born by FET have higher birth weight but increased odds of infectious disease, hematologic, respiratory, and neurologic abnormalities. These risks should be considered when making decisions on fresh versus FET.

Indexed as

Health StatusAdolescentAdultBirth WeightCohort StudiesCryopreservationEmbryo TransferFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornLongitudinal StudiesMassachusettsPregnancyRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeYoung Adultassisted reproductive technologyBirth outcomesFETfresh embryo transferin vitro fertilizationnewborn

Identifiers

PMID31466699
PMCPMC6858957

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.