Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36611003›Full record

SynthesisHuman reproduction update2023

Offspring physiology following the use of IVM, IVF and ICSI: a systematic review and meta-analysis of animal studies.

Kiri H Beilby, Ezra Kneebone, Tessa J Roseboom, Indah M van Marrewijk, Jeremy G Thompson, Robert J Norman, Rebecca L Robker, Ben Willem J Mol, Rui Wang

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Human reproduction update, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
25.6field-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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. IGF-1 supplementation improvesFrontiers in veterinary science · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Reproductive genetics and health.Medizinische Genetik : Mitteilungsblatt des Berufsverbandes Medizinische Genetik e.V · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Kiri H BeilbyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1378-5586
Ezra KneeboneDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Tessa J RoseboomDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Indah M van MarrewijkThe Robinson Research Institute, School of Biomedicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Jeremy G ThompsonThe Robinson Research Institute, School of Biomedicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Robert J NormanThe Robinson Research Institute, School of Biomedicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Rebecca L RobkerThe Robinson Research Institute, School of Biomedicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1538-4604
Ben Willem J MolDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8337-550X
Rui WangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6622-8134
Monash University · AUThe University of Adelaide · AUAmsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam · NLErasmus MC · NLUniversity of Aberdeen · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSince the birth of the first baby using IVF technology in 1978, over 10 million children have been conceived via ART. Although most aspects of ARTs were developed in animal models, the introduction of these technologies into clinical practice was performed without comprehensive assessment of their long-term safety. The monitoring of these technologies over time has revealed differences in the physiology of babies produced using ARTs, yet due to the pathology of those presenting for treatment, it is challenging to separate the cause of infertility from the effect of treatments offered. The use of systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the impacts of the predominant ART interventions used clinically in human populations on animals produced in healthy fertile populations offers an alternative approach to understanding the long-term safety of reproductive technologies. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the evidence available from animal studies on physiological outcomes in the offspring conceived after IVF, IVM or ICSI, compared to in vivo fertilization, and to provide an overview on the landscape of research in this area. SEARCH

methodsPubMed, Embase and Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux (CAB) Abstracts were searched for relevant studies published until 27 August 2021. Search terms relating to assisted reproductive technology, postnatal outcomes and mammalian animal models were used. Studies that compared postnatal outcomes between in vitro-conceived (IVF, ICSI or IVM) and in vivo-conceived mammalian animal models were included. In vivo conception included mating, artificial insemination, or either of these followed by embryo transfer to a recipient animal with or without in vitro culture. Outcomes included birth weight, gestation length, cardiovascular, metabolic and behavioural characteristics and lifespan. OUTCOMES: A total of 61 studies in five different species (bovine, equine, murine, ovine and non-human primate) met the inclusion criteria. The bovine model was the most frequently used in IVM studies (32/40), while the murine model was mostly used in IVF (17/20) and ICSI (6/8) investigations. Despite considerable heterogeneity, these studies suggest that the use of IVF or maturation results in offspring with higher birthweights and a longer length of gestation, with most of this evidence coming from studies in cattle. These techniques may also impair glucose and lipid metabolism in male mice. The findings on cardiovascular outcomes and behaviour outcomes were inconsistent across studies. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: Conception via in vitro or in vivo means appears to have an influence on measurable outcomes of offspring physiology, manifesting differently across the species studied. Importantly, it can be noted that these measurable differences are noticeable in healthy, fertile animal populations. Thus, common ART interventions may have long-term consequences for those conceived through these techniques, regardless of the pathology underpinning diagnosed infertility. However, due to heterogeneous methods, results and measured outcomes, highlighted in this review, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions. Optimizing animal and human studies that investigate the safety of new reproductive technologies will provide insight into safeguarding the introduction of novel interventions into the clinical setting. Cautiously prescribing the use of ARTs clinically may also be considered to reduce the chance of promoting adverse outcomes in children conceived before long-term safety is confidently documented.

Indexed as

Fertilization in VitroInfertilityAnimalsCattleFertilizationHorsesHumansMaleMammalsMiceProteinsReproductive Techniques, AssistedSheepSperm Injections, IntracytoplasmicProteinsanimal modelARTassisted reproductionICSIIVFIVMpostnatal outcomessystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36611003
PMCPMC10152177
OpenAlexW4313702100

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.