ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2025
Incidence of cross-border reproductive care and pregnancy outcomes: a retrospective evaluation of IVF conceptions.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the incidence of cross-border reproductive care (CBRC) and maternal and neonatal outcomes in pregnancies conceived through in vitro fertilization (IVF), comparing outcomes between pregnancies conceived domestically and through CBRC.
methodsA retrospective chart review was conducted on 4475 deliveries at a tertiary public hospital from February 1, 2023, to January 31, 2024. Maternal demographics, medical history, delivery outcomes, and complications were compared using statistical tests, with significance set at p < 0.05.
resultsAmong all deliveries, 95 were conceived via IVF. Among the IVF pregnancies, 23 (24.2%) were conceived through CBRC. While CBRC patients were older on average (40.3 vs. 37.8 years), this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.07). The incidence of hypertensive disorders was significantly higher in CBRC pregnancies compared to domestic IVF pregnancies (69.6% vs. 37.7%, p = 0.01). Trends toward increased rates of postpartum hemorrhage (17.4% vs. 5.8%) and multiple gestations (26.1% vs. 11.6%) were also observed in the CBRC group, although these differences did not reach statistical significance. Neonatal outcomes, including rates of preterm birth, fetal growth restriction, and respiratory distress syndrome, were similar between the two groups.
conclusionThe study highlights a significantly higher percentage of hypertensive disorders among CBRC pregnancies, while other maternal and neonatal outcomes were comparable to domestic IVF pregnancies. These findings underscore the need for further research with larger sample sizes and survey-based studies to better understand patient motivations and clinical risks associated with CBRC.
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.