Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34170923›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2021

Separating parental and treatment contributions to perinatal health after fresh and frozen embryo transfer in assisted reproduction: A cohort study with within-sibship analysis.

Kjersti Westvik-Johari, Liv Bente Romundstad, Deborah A Lawlor, Christina Bergh, Mika Gissler, Anna-Karina A Henningsen, Siri E Håberg, Ulla-Britt Wennerholm, Aila Tiitinen, Anja Pinborg and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
12.0field-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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Factors influencing the birth weight of ART-conceived offspring.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Birth size after embryo cryopreservation: larger by all measures?Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2023
    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 7 institutions in 5 countries.

Kjersti Westvik-JohariDepartment of Fertility, Women and Children's Centre, St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-6931-5559
Liv Bente RomundstadCentre for Fertility and Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-3259-3915
Deborah A LawlorMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6793-2262
Christina BerghDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-6049-7731
Mika GisslerStatistics and Registers Unit, Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-8254-7525
Anna-Karina A HenningsenFertility Clinic, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Siri E HåbergCentre for Fertility and Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Ulla-Britt WennerholmDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-2475-2226
Aila TiitinenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0003-3088-5594
Anja PinborgFertility Clinic, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-8340-104X
Signe OpdahlDepartment of Public Health and Nursing, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-6593-8433
Copenhagen University Hospital · DKNorwegian Institute of Public Health · NONorwegian University of Science and Technology · NOSahlgrenska University Hospital · SEKarolinska Institutet · SEUniversity of Bristol · GBUniversity of Helsinki · FI

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00011/6
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCompared to naturally conceived children, adverse perinatal outcomes are more common among children born after assisted reproductive technology with fresh embryo transfer (fresh-ET) or frozen embryo transfer (frozen-ET). However, most previous studies could not adequately control for family confounding factors such as subfertility. We compared birth size and duration of pregnancy among infants born after fresh-ET or frozen-ET versus natural conception, using a within-sibship design to account for confounding by maternal factors. METHODS AND

findingsThis registry-based cohort study with nationwide data from Denmark (1994-2014), Norway (1988-2015), and Sweden (1988-2015) consisted of 4,510,790 live-born singletons, 4,414,703 from natural conception, 78,095 from fresh-ET, and 17,990 from frozen-ET. We identified 33,056 offspring sibling groups with the same mother, conceived by at least 2 different conception methods. Outcomes were mean birthweight, small and large for gestational age, mean gestational age, preterm (<37 weeks, versus ≥37), and very preterm birth (<32 weeks, versus ≥32). Singletons born after fresh-ET had lower mean birthweight (-51 g, 95% CI -58 to -45, p < 0.001) and increased odds of small for gestational age (odds ratio [OR] 1.20, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.34, p < 0.001), while those born after frozen-ET had higher mean birthweight (82 g, 95% CI 70 to 94, p < 0.001) and increased odds of large for gestational age (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.17, p < 0.001), compared to naturally conceived siblings. Conventional population analyses gave similar results. Compared to naturally conceived siblings, mean gestational age was lower after fresh-ET (-1.0 days, 95% CI -1.2 to -0.8, p < 0.001), but not after frozen-ET (0.3 days, 95% CI 0.0 to 0.6, p = 0.028). There were increased odds of preterm birth after fresh-ET (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.37, p < 0.001), and in most models after frozen-ET, versus naturally conceived siblings, with somewhat stronger associations in population analyses. For very preterm birth, population analyses showed increased odds for both fresh-ET (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.90 to 2.12, p < 0.001) and frozen-ET (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.42 to 1.94, p < 0.001) compared with natural conception, but results were notably attenuated within siblings (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.0 to 1.41, p = 0.059, and OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.27, p = 0.6, for fresh-ET and frozen-ET, respectively). Sensitivity analyses in full siblings, in siblings born within 3-year interval, by birth order, and restricting to single embryo transfers and blastocyst transfers were consistent with the main analyses. Main limitations were high proportions of missing data on maternal body mass index and smoking.

conclusionsWe found that infants conceived by fresh-ET had lower birthweight and increased odds of small for gestational age, and those conceived by frozen-ET had higher birthweight and increased odds of large for gestational age. Conception by either fresh-ET or frozen-ET was associated with increased odds of preterm birth. That these findings were observed within siblings, as well as in conventional multivariable population analyses, reduces the likelihood that they are explained by confounding or selection bias.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov ISRCTN11780826.

Indexed as

CryopreservationEmbryo TransferAdultBirth WeightFemaleFertilityFertilization in VitroGestational AgeHumansInfant, Low Birth WeightInfant, PrematureInfant, Small for Gestational AgeInfertilityLive BirthPregnancyPregnancy Outcome

Identifiers

PMID34170923
PMCPMC8274923
OpenAlexW3175954186

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.