ArticleUltrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology2026
Gestational age determination in pregnancies conceived via assisted reproductive technology.
Article in Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare gestational age (GA) dating models for pregnancies conceived via assisted reproductive technology (ART), assess whether 14 or 15 days more accurately reflects the median follicular-phase duration in ART pregnancies and evaluate whether the gestational timelines of ART pregnancies are comparable with that of spontaneously conceived pregnancies.
methodsWe employed population data from the Medical Birth Registry of Norway (2015-2021), including 163 544 children conceived spontaneously, 2067 conceived via fresh embryo transfer (ET) and 2080 conceived via frozen ET. Among ART pregnancies, we compared two GA dating methods: a population-based ultrasound model (GA
resultsThe absolute individual GA differences between ultrasound and ART-based dating, considering a 14-day median follicular-phase duration, were ≤ 1 day for 969/2067 (46.9%) fresh ET pregnancies and for 874/2080 (42.0%) frozen ET pregnancies. An approximate systematic difference of 1 day was observed, which we corrected by employing a 15-day median follicular-phase duration in the ART-based formula (GA
conclusionsWe found close statistical agreement between ultrasound and ART-based dating models for both GA and EDD. However, 15 (not 14) days of follicular-phase duration should be utilized in the ART-based formula to avoid systematic bias in ART-based GA estimates. Fresh and frozen ET pregnancies had different birth distributions and median pregnancy durations, underscoring that they are not comparable with spontaneously conceived pregnancies and they should be evaluated separately. © 2026 The Author(s). Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
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.