ArticleReproductive medicine and biology
Risks of neonatal anomalies and obstetric complications in 7378 singleton births after frozen-thawed and fresh embryo transfers in Japan: An analysis using doubly robust estimation.
Article in Reproductive medicine and biology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hormone Replacement Cycle Frozen-Thawed Embryo Transfer Is Associated With Elevated Perinatal Risk Compared With Natural Ovulatory Cycle Frozen-Thawed and Fresh Embryo Transfers: Retrospective Analysis of 7,593 Live Birth Cycles.Reproductive medicine and biologyArticle
- Risks of neonatal anomalies and obstetric complications in 7378 singleton births after frozen-thawed and fresh embryo transfers in Japan: An analysis using doubly robust estimation.Reproductive medicine and biologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare risks of neonatal anomalies and obstetric complications among frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET), fresh embryo transfer (FreshET), and non-assisted reproductive technology (non-ART) treatments in infertile women. Methods: This retrospective cohort study analyzed 7378 singleton births (2643 non-ART, 4219 FET, 516 FreshET) from 2013 to 2022. Outcomes were compared using inverse probability weighting regression adjustment, with adjustment for maternal factors. Results: After adjustment, the risk of neonatal anomalies did not differ significantly between FET and non-ART, or FreshET and non-ART. FET was associated with increased risks of obstetric complications compared with non-ART, including placenta accreta (adjusted risk difference [ARD] 3.61%, 95% CI 2.95-4.28), placenta previa (ARD 0.55%, 95% CI 0.14-0.96), postpartum hemorrhage (ARD 7.08%, 95% CI 6.03-8.13), gestational hypertension (ARD 3.57%, 95% CI 2.47-4.68), gestational diabetes (ARD 0.96%, 95% CI 0.17-1.75), and preterm birth (ARD 2.13%, 95% CI 1.23-3.02). FET also showed higher risk of high birth weight (ARD 0.97%, 95% CI 0.42-1.52). FreshET showed no significant differences in obstetric complications. Conclusions: While the risk of neonatal anomalies did not differ among treatments, FET was associated with increased obstetric complication risks. These findings underscore the need for careful management of FET pregnancies and further research to improve treatment protocols.
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.