ArticleBMJ open2024
Perinatal health in a cohort of children conceived after assisted reproduction in the UK: a population-based record-linkage study.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Perinatal growth and neurodevelopmental outcomes in preterm infants conceived via assisted reproductive technology: a retrospective comparative cohort study.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the risk of hospitalisation for conditions originating in the perinatal period between children conceived via assisted reproductive technology and those that are naturally conceived, differentiating by treatment type. STUDY DESIGN, SETTING AND
participantsPopulation-based record-linkage study of children born after assisted reproduction in the UK between 2002 and 2009 (n=44 618), their naturally conceived siblings (n=8462) and matched naturally conceived population (n=89 072) controls linked to their hospital inpatient records up to 31 March 2016. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Robust estimates of the overall and cause-specific risk of hospital admission for adverse perinatal events and the comparison of outcomes by type of treatment.
resultsOver the study period, 17 132 (38.40%) children conceived via assisted reproduction and 30 306 (34.02%) and 1738 (20.54%) naturally conceived population and sibling controls, respectively, were admitted to the hospital for severe perinatal events. Compared with the population controls, singletons (Risk ratio (95% CI 1.30 (1.26, 1.34))) and twins (1.01 (0.99, 1.03)) conceived via assisted reproduction exhibited a higher risk of hospitalisation for any adverse perinatal event. However, no such increase was observed in the within-sibling analysis (0.97 (0.84, 1.12)). Similar patterns were seen for diagnoses related to length of gestation and fetal growth (vs population controls: 1.37 (1.29, 1.46); vs siblings: 1.17 (0.86, 1.60)); birth trauma (vs population controls: 1.23 (1.04, 1.44); vs siblings: 0.78 (0.47, 1.30)); respiratory and cardiovascular disorders (vs population controls: 1.28 (1.20, 1.38); vs siblings: 0.72 (0.53, 0.98)); infections (vs population controls: 1.30 (1.06, 1.59); vs siblings: 0,68 (0.24, 1.90)) and several other conditions. Associations were similar when comparing in vitro fertilisation to intracytoplasmic sperm injection and were higher when comparing fresh to frozen embryo transfers.
conclusionChildren conceived via assisted reproduction showed modest increases in the risk of hospitalisations for severe perinatal events when compared with population controls, although these findings were attenuated in the sibling analyses. The imprecision of within-sibling analyses highlights the need for larger studies to explore potential causal effects.
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.