ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2022
Prognosis of Congenital Anomalies in Conceptions Following
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk Factors for Prematurity and Congenital Malformations in Assisted Reproductive Technology Pregnancies-A Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Safety profiles of offspring born from early-follicular long-acting GnRH agonist protocol and daily mid-luteal GnRH agonist protocol: a retrospective study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Conceptions following Methods: In this multicenter retrospective cohort study, we followed 405,473 embryo transfer cycles at 15 reproductive centers between January 2010 and December 2019 and enrolled 2,006 intrauterine pregnancies with congenital anomalies. The relatively positive prognosis group with one or more live births and neonatal survival for more than 7 days was compared with the poor prognosis group with poorer outcomes. Results: Among the 168,270 ongoing intrauterine pregnancy cycles, the prevalence of congenital anomalies was 1.19%, wherein the malformation rates of cycles with late abortion and delivery were 2.37% (716/30,202) and 0.93% (1,290/138,068), respectively. Among all IVF/ICSI cycles with congenital anomalies, the relatively positive prognosis rate was 61.39%. Moreover, the fertilization failure rate (2 pro-nuclei rate < 25%) in the poor prognosis group was significantly higher than that in the relatively positive prognosis group (10.89% vs. 5.09%, Conclusion: Poor fertilization rates during IVF/ICSI treatments are more likely to have poor prognosis in fetuses or neonates with congenital anomalies, and obstetric management should be strengthened in pregnant women, with which pregnant women should be recommended to strengthen obstetric management.
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.