ArticleJournal of reproduction & infertility
Comparison of Obstetric Outcomes Between IVF cycles with Donor Oocyte and Spontaneous Conception Pregnancies: A Retrospective Cohort study.
Article in Journal of reproduction & infertility. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The risk for the development of hypertensive complications in oocyte donation pregnancy: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis (DONOR IPD).Human reproduction update · 2026Pooled it
- Global and regional incidence of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Association of Maternal Risk Factors With First-Trimester Missed Abortion: A Cross-Sectional Study.Cureus · 2025Article
- Comparison of obstetric and perinatal complications in intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles with autologous oocytes and donated oocytes.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2024Article
- Pregnancy Outcomes FollowingIn vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Oocyte donation has facilitated couples to achieve pregnancy in conditions like diminished ovarian reserve, premature ovarian failure, and inheritable disorders. However, it is unclear whether pregnancy complications are due to oocyte donation per se or due to confounding factors such as maternal age or the allogenic fetus. In this retrospective comparative cohort, an attempt was made to evaluate and compare multiple obstetric and perinatal outcomes. Methods: The present study comprised all women in the age range of 20-45 years who conceived from oocyte donation (n=102) between 1/12/2011 to 30/09/2017. Control group consisted of spontaneous conception cases (n=306) in ratio of 1:3 with no previous medical or surgery comorbidity. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes were compared between two groups. Results: Mean maternal age was significantly higher in the donor oocyte IVF group (group 1; 35.13 years) as compared to spontaneous conception group (group 2; 31.75 years). Parity between the two groups was comparable. Pregnancy induced hypertension (PIH) was seen in 33.33% of cases in group 1 as compared to 7.18% in group 2. Moreover, gestational diabetes mellitus was seen in 34.31% of cases in group 1 as compared to 9.47% in group 2 (p=0.001). By the same token, there was significant difference in perinatal outcomes between the two groups. Conclusion: Oocyte donation should be treated as an independent risk factor for miscarriage, hypertensive disorder, and gestational diabetes mellitus in pregnancy.
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.