Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40754175›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of obstetrics and gynecology2026

Reappraisal of adverse obstetric outcomes independently associated with contemporary fertility treatment practices: a US prospective cohort study.

David Huang, Yue Song, Jennifer Qin, Rebecca Wong, Chantal Durgana, Amanda Adeleye, Paolo Rinaudo, Robert H Lustig, Lydia B Zablotska, Marcelle I Cedars

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

10 authors.

David HuangDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of California San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA. Electronic address: David.Huang@UCSF.edu.
Yue SongDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of California San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA.
Jennifer QinDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of California San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA.
Rebecca WongDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of California San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA.
Chantal DurganaSchool of Medicine, UCSF, San Francisco, CA.
Amanda AdeleyeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Paolo RinaudoDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of California San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA.
Robert H LustigDepartment of Pediatrics, UCSF, San Francisco, CA.
Lydia B ZablotskaDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, UCSF, San Francisco, CA.
Marcelle I CedarsDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of California San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA.

Funding

Developmental Epidemiological Study of Children born through Reproductive Technology (DESCRT)R01HD084380 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI CEDARS, MARCELLE IVONNE, ZABLOTSKA, LYDIA B · 2016 to 2021
$3.2M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD084380
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundObstetric complications linked to assisted reproductive technology could be confounded by underlying parental factors and were often derived from databases not designed to study these complications. With evolving assisted reproductive technology practices, it is unclear to what extent contemporary assisted reproductive technology independently contributes to obstetric risks.

objectiveWe aimed to prospectively evaluate obstetric risks associated with contemporary fertility practices, adjusting for parental and assisted reproductive technology parameters. STUDY

designProspective enrollment of patients with infertility who subsequently conceived unassisted, with non-in vitro fertilization fertility treatment, or assisted reproductive technology at a single US academic fertility center (September 2017-December 2021). Multiple gestations and surrogacy pregnancies were excluded from analysis. Parental characteristics, treatment parameters, and obstetric complications were assessed from medical records. The main outcome was physician-adjudicated obstetric complications (hypertensive disorders, abnormal placentation, fetal growth restriction, spontaneous preterm birth, and gestational diabetes). Maternal serum placental analyte level (pregnancy-associated plasma protein A) was also assessed by mode of conception. Cumulative incidences of obstetric complications by mode of conception were compared using chi-squared test. Univariable and multivariable log-binomial regression analyses were used to generate crude and adjusted risk ratios and their 95% confidence intervals to assess for associations between putative risk factors and abnormal placentation. Distributions of pregnancy-associated plasma protein A levels were compared using Kruskal-Wallis test, with correction for multiple pairwise comparisons with Dunn's test. All tests were 2-sided and conducted at the 0.05 level of significance.

resultsOf 2332 pregnancies approached for recruitment, 782 enrolled in the cohort, resulting in 656 singleton live births: 92 unassisted, 116 from non-in vitro fertilization fertility treatment, and 448 from assisted reproductive technology. The median (interquartile range) ages of the female patients were 37 (35-39), 36 (34-38), and 38 (35-41) years, respectively (P<.01). Abnormal placentation was the only assessed complication with a higher cumulative incidence in assisted reproductive technology vs nonassisted reproductive technology pregnancies (unassisted and non-in vitro fertilization fertility treatment combined). Thirty-nine patients had an abnormal placentation event in the assisted reproductive technology group, accounting for 8.7% (95% confidence interval, 6.3% to 11.7%) of assisted reproductive technology pregnancies, compared to 3, 1.4% (95% confidence interval, 0.3% to 4.1%), in non-assisted reproductive technology pregnancies (P<.01). Compared to non-assisted reproductive technology pregnancies, adjusting for parental factors, assisted reproductive technology was independently associated with a higher relative risk of abnormal placentation (adjusted relative risk, 6.19 [95% confidence interval, 1.84-20.82], P<.01). Within assisted reproductive technology pregnancies, fresh embryo transfer was the treatment parameter associated with abnormal placentation (adjusted relative risk, 2.07 [95% confidence interval, 1.10-3.92], P=.025). Pregnancy-associated plasma protein A level was particularly lower in fresh embryo transfer-conceived pregnancies (median multiple of the median value of 0.65 [interquartile range, 0.42-1.02 multiple of the median]), compared to non-assisted reproductive technology pregnancies (1.09 multiple of the median [interquartile range, 0.70-1.56 multiple of the median]) (P<.001).

conclusionAdjusting for underlying infertility, assisted reproductive technology remained independently associated with abnormal placentation. This risk should be considered during patient counseling and clinical management, particularly when assisted reproductive technology is pursued for elective reasons. The impact of fresh embryo transfer on placentation warrants further investigation.

Indexed as

Pregnancy ComplicationsReproductive Techniques, AssistedAdultDiabetes, GestationalFemaleFetal Growth RetardationHumansHypertension, Pregnancy-InducedPregnancyPremature BirthProspective StudiesRisk FactorsUnited Statesassisted reproductive technologyin vitro fertilizationobstetric complicationsplacentation

Identifiers

PMID40754175
PMCPMC13573497

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.