Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37051028›Full record

ArticleBMJ medicine2023

Reproductive outcomes in women and men conceived by assisted reproductive technologies in Norway: prospective registry based study.

Ellen Øen Carlsen, Allen J Wilcox, Maria Christine Magnus, Hans Ivar Hanevik, Siri Eldevik Håberg

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Ellen Øen CarlsenCentre for Fertility and Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-1615-5536
Allen J WilcoxCentre for Fertility and Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Maria Christine MagnusCentre for Fertility and Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Hans Ivar HanevikCentre for Fertility and Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Siri Eldevik HåbergCentre for Fertility and Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Norwegian Institute of Public Health · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: To determine whether the perinatal outcomes of women or men who were conceived by assisted reproductive technologies are different compared with their peers who were naturally conceived. Design: Prospective registry based study. Setting: Medical Birth Registry of Norway. Participants: People born in Norway between 1984 and 2002 with a registered pregnancy by the end of 2021. Exposure: People who were conceived by assisted reproductive technologies and have had a registered pregnancy. Main outcome measures: Comparing pregnancies and births of people who were conceived by assisted reproductive technologies and people who were naturally conceived, we assessed mean birth weight, gestational age, and placental weight by linear regression, additionally, the odds of congenital malformations, a low 5 min Apgar score (<7), transfer to a neonatal intensive care unit, delivery by caesarean section, use of assisted reproductive technologies, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and pre-eclampsia, preterm birth, and offspring sex, by logistic regression. The occurrence of any registered pregnancy from people aged 14 years until age at the end of follow-up was assessed using Cox proportional regression for both groups. Results: Among 1 092 151 people born in Norway from 1984 to 2002, 180 652 were registered at least once as mothers, and 137 530 as fathers. Of these, 399 men and 553 women were conceived by assisted reproductive technologies. People who were conceived by assisted reproductive technologies had little evidence of increased risk of adverse outcomes in their own pregnancies, increased use of assisted reproductive technologies, or any difference in mean birth weight, placental weight, or gestational age. The only exception was for an increased risk of the neonate having a low Apgar score at 5 min (adjusted odds ratio 1.86 (95% confidence interval 1.20 to 2.89)) among women who were conceived by assisted reproductive technologies. Odds were slightly decreased of having a boy among mothers conceived by assisted reproductive technologies (odds ratio 0.79 (95% confidence interval 0.67 to 0.93)). People conceived by assisted reproductive technologies were slightly less likely to have a registered pregnancy within the follow-up period (women, adjusted hazard ratio 0.88 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.96); men, 0.91 (0.83 to 1.01)). Conclusions: People conceived by assisted reproductive technologies were not at increased risk of obstetric or perinatal complications when becoming parents. The proportion of people conceived by assisted reproductive technologies with a registered pregnancy was lower than among people who were naturally conceived, but a longer follow-up is required to fully assess their fertility and reproductive history.

Indexed as

EpidemiologyInfertility, maleObstetricsReproductive medicine

Identifiers

PMID37051028
PMCPMC10083741
OpenAlexW4324137251

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.