ReviewReproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.)2024
The Long-Term Outcome of Children Conceived Through Assisted Reproductive Technology.
Review in Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assisted Reproductive Technology and Risk of Childhood Cancer Among the Offspring of Parents With Infertility: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JMIR cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Precautions for polygenic embryo selection: prohibition or cautious use.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2026Article
- The Role of Perinatal Complications in Neurodevelopmental Outcomes of ART-Conceived Children: Prognostic Model for Brain Immaturity.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Metabolic Status and Expression Level of SREBP mRNA and Mir-33 Among Children Conceived by Assisted Reproductive Technology.International journal of genomics · 2025Article
- Focus on the endocrine system of children born after reproductive technologies in Kazakhstan.Qatar medical journal · 2025Article
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
Abstract
Assisted reproductive technology (ART) led to the birth of 60,381 infants in 2020 in Japan. This number is set to increase as the future interest in ART is anticipated to rise. Couples receiving ART are monitoring the outcomes of these treatments to see whether any differences exist between babies conceived naturally and those conceived via ART. This study investigated the relationship between the long-term outcome of children born from ART with a focus on physical and psychomotor developments. A large volume of data concerning each relationship with ART was collected from various observational studies. Several findings indicate that, over time, the physical characteristics of babies born by ART, and those born naturally are comparable. However, some reports indicate that, until they reach school age, there may be a small difference in growth. ART and naturally conceived children do not vary in academic achievement or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Taken together, it is difficult to conclude with certainty that ART is the source of these differences since they may arise from the child's genetic factors or their environment.
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.