ArticleActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2025
A comparative study on infant growth between assisted reproductive technology pregnancy and natural pregnancy.
Article in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2025. 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.
- A comparative study on infant growth between assisted reproductive technology pregnancy and natural pregnancy.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionGlobally, the number of assisted reproductive technology (ART) infants has surpassed 10 million, with its utilization steadily increasing. Numerous studies have shown that ART pregnancies are more prone to adverse pregnancy outcomes. ART infants are at a higher risk for adverse birth outcomes. However, the differences in growth between ART and natural pregnancy (NP) infants remain controversial. This study aims to explore differences in pregnancy outcomes, birth outcomes, and growth rates between ART and NP infants during the first year of life, and to analyze the association between ART and rapid growth. MATERIAL AND
methodsBirth records of the Nantong area, China, from January 2020 to June 2021 were extracted. A total of 29 886 pregnant women and 30 051 infants were included in the characteristic analysis. Based on the use of ART recorded in the database, the pregnant women and infants were categorized into ART and NP groups, with the NP serving as the control group. For the growth analysis, 29 447 singleton infants were included. Growth within 12 months was examined using the LMS method. The association between reproductive methods, perinatal sociodemographic characteristics, infant birth characteristics, and rapid growth was analyzed using GEE model. To further explore the association between ART and rapid growth, we performed subgroup analyses based on infants' sex, birth weight, and perinatal residence, which were statistically associated with rapid growth in the multivariate GEE model.
resultsART infants had higher rates of preterm birth (7.4% vs. 4.8%) and cesarean section (57.7% vs. 49.1%; p < 0.001 for both). Growth analysis displayed faster overall growth rates and higher rapid growth incidence in ART singleton infants. Multivariate GEE analysis showed that ART was associated with a higher incidence of rapid growth in both length (OR = 1.415, 95% CI: 1.316-1.521) and weight (OR = 1.236, 95% CI: 1.134-1.348).
conclusionsART singleton infants demonstrated a greater likelihood of experiencing rapid growth, despite being at higher risk of SGA, and achieved growth trajectories comparable to NP singleton infants. The findings suggest that ART may not influence postnatal growth. These results underscore the importance of tailored clinical monitoring and interventions for ART infants to ensure optimal growth and long-term health.
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.