Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39899615›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2025

Risk of placenta previa in assisted reproductive technology: A Nordic population study with sibling analyses.

Eirik Landsverk, Kjersti Westvik-Johari, Ulla-Britt Wennerholm, Christina Bergh, Frederik Kyhl, Anne Lærke Spangmose, Ditte Vassard, Anja Pinborg, Kristiina Rönö, Mika Gissler and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

12 authors.

Eirik LandsverkDepartment of Public Health and Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9517-8789
Kjersti Westvik-JohariDepartment of Public Health and Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6931-5559
Ulla-Britt WennerholmDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2475-2226
Christina BerghDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6049-7731
Frederik KyhlFertility Clinic, Department of Gynaecology, Fertility and Obstetrics, Copenhagen University Hospital-Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4666-8973
Anne Lærke SpangmoseFertility Clinic, Department of Gynaecology, Fertility and Obstetrics, Copenhagen University Hospital-Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7541-5858
Ditte VassardFertility Clinic, Department of Gynaecology, Fertility and Obstetrics, Copenhagen University Hospital-Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6298-4146
Anja PinborgFertility Clinic, Department of Gynaecology, Fertility and Obstetrics, Copenhagen University Hospital-Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8340-104X
Kristiina RönöDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
Mika GisslerDepartment of Data and Analytics, THL Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8254-7525
Sindre Hoff PetersenDepartment of Public Health and Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9066-3654
Signe OpdahlDepartment of Public Health and Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6593-8433

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA higher risk of placenta previa after assisted reproductive technology (ART) is well established. The underlying mechanisms are poorly understood, but may relate to embryo culture duration, cryopreservation, and cause of infertility. Within-mother analyses, where each woman is her own control (i.e., sibling design), help disentangle treatment contributions from maternal confounders that are stable between pregnancies. We aimed to investigate the risk of placenta previa in pregnancies achieved after ART according to embryo culture duration, cryopreservation, and infertility factors while accounting for stable maternal factors using within-mother analyses. METHODS AND

findingsWe used linked nationwide registry data from Denmark (1994 to 2014), Finland (1990 to 2014), Norway (1988 to 2015), and Sweden (1988 to 2015). All women who gave their first birth during the study period at age 20 years or older were eligible and contributed up to 4 deliveries (singleton or multifetal) occurring between 22 and 44 weeks of gestation, excluding deliveries where maternal age exceeded 45 years. We used multilevel logistic regression to compare risk of placenta previa after ART (n = 139,694 deliveries) versus natural conception (n = 5,614,512 deliveries), both at the population level and within mothers, adjusting for year of delivery, maternal age, parity, and country. We categorized ART according to culture duration, embryo cryopreservation, and infertility factors. Population level risk of placenta previa was higher for ART versus natural conception (odds ratio [OR], 4.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.96-4.37). Controlling for stable maternal factors, the association attenuated, but risk remained higher for ART versus natural conception (OR within mothers, 2.64; 95% CI, 2.31-3.02). Compared to naturally conceived, a larger difference in risk was seen for pregnancies from fresh embryos than for pregnancies from frozen embryos. Further categorization by culture duration showed the largest risk difference after fresh blastocyst transfer, and the smallest after frozen cleavage stage embryo transfer, which persisted in sensitivity analyses (including restriction to singletons). When stratified according to infertility factors at the population level, women with endometriosis conceiving by ART had the highest risk of placenta previa (OR, 9.35; 95% CI, 8.50-10.29), whereas women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) conceiving by ART had the lowest risk (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.12-2.09), compared to natural conception. Within mothers, we found a higher risk of placenta previa after ART compared to natural conception for women with endometriosis (OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.50-2.90), but not for women with PCOS (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.41-1.89 [unadjusted due to sparse data]). However, within-mother analyses are restricted to multiparous women with deliveries after different conception methods. Therefore, findings from these analyses might not generalize to all women undergoing ART.

conclusionsThe risk of placenta previa in pregnancies conceived by ART differed by embryo culture duration, cryopreservation, and underlying infertility. The highest risk was seen after fresh embryo transfer and especially fresh blastocyst transfer. Women with endometriosis had a higher risk than women with other infertility factors, and within mothers, their risk was higher after ART than after natural conception. Identifying the responsible mechanisms might provide opportunities for prevention.

Indexed as

Placenta PreviaReproductive Techniques, AssistedAdultCryopreservationEmbryo Culture TechniquesFemaleHumansPregnancyRegistriesRisk FactorsScandinavian and Nordic CountriesSiblingsSwedenYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID39899615
PMCPMC11835333

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.