ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2022
Obstetric outcomes of young women following in-vitro fertilization: a case-control study.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- From a single child to family planning: determinants of returning to ART to build the desired family in a monocentric Italian cohort.Human reproduction open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWomen undergoing in-vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments are at increased risk for maternal and neonatal complications compared to women who conceive spontaneously. Though spontaneous pregnancies of young women and adolescents have an increased risk for adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes, pregnancy outcomes of this age group, following IVF treatment have been scarcely reported. The aim of this study was to report maternal and neonatal outcomes of young women who conceived following IVF compared to women in the same age group with spontaneous conception.
methodsWe performed a multicenter case-control study. The study group included women aged 17-25 years who conceived by IVF with an ongoing singleton pregnancy. For the purpose of the study, a control group matched (1:2 ratio) for maternal age at delivery and parity was constructed. Demographic, medical history, pregnancy related characteristics and maternal and neonatal outcomes were compared between groups. Finally, factors associated with spontaneous vaginal delivery were assessed for the entire cohort using a univariate and multivariate logistic regression model.
resultsBetween 2005 and 2021, we identified 80 women aged 19-25 years who conceived by IVF. A control group of 160 women was matched to the study group by age and parity. The unmatched maternal characteristics and pregnancy associated complications were similar among the groups. However, the IVF group had a significantly higher rate of induction of labor (48.1% vs. 26.6%, p = 0.001), meconium-stained amniotic fluid (27.6% vs. 14.1%, p = 0.025), prolonged second stage of labor (26.0% vs. 7.3%, p = 0.001) and operative vaginal delivery (22.5% vs.12.5%, p = 0.048). Neonatal outcomes were for the most part comparable; nevertheless, we found a higher rate of neonates with an umbilical artery pH < 7.1 in the IVF group (9.8% vs. 0.0%, respectively; p = 0.022). A logistic regression analysis for spontaneous vaginal delivery (vs. cesarean or operative vaginal deliveries) found that spontaneous onset of labor (vs. induction of labor) (OR = 2.08; 95% CI = 1.07-4.05, p = 0.03) was positively associated with spontaneous vaginal delivery while prolonged second stage of labor (OR = 0.35; 95% CI = 0.13-0.95, p = 0.04) was negatively associated with this parameter.
conclusionYoung women who conceive by in-vitro fertilization are expected to reach favorable pregnancy outcomes, comparable to women who conceived spontaneously.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.