Assisted reproductive technology and risk of congenital malformations: a meta-analysis based on cohort studies
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, ISSN: 1432-0711, Vol: 292, Issue: 4, Page: 777-798
2015
- 78Citations
- 63Captures
- 1Mentions
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations78
- Citation Indexes77
- 77
- CrossRef52
- Policy Citations1
- Policy Citation1
- Captures63
- Readers63
- 63
- Mentions1
- Blog Mentions1
- Blog1
Review Description
Purpose: To assess the association between assisted reproductive technology (ART) and risk of congenital malformations (CM) by conducting a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Methods: PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Libraries and Chinese database were searched through August 2014 to identify studies that met pre-stated inclusion criteria. Either a fixed- or a random-effects model was used to calculate the overall combined risk estimates. Subgroup analysis was performed to explore potential heterogeneity moderators. Results: Fifty-seven studies involving 119,874 infants conceived following ART and 1,212,320 infants conceived naturally were included in the analysis. The ART-conceived infants were associated with a higher risk of CM [relative risk (RR) = 1.33; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.24–1.43] when compared with those conceived naturally. When data were restricted to singleton births (RR = 1.38; 95 % CI 1.30–1.47), major CM (RR = 1.47; 95 % CI 1.29–1.68), matched/adjusted studies (RR = 1.37; 95 % CI 1.27–1.47) or high quality studies (RR = 1.40; 95 % CI 1.27–1.55), the increased risk of CM still existed in ART pregnancies. Additionally, an increased risk of CM was also found when the ART twin (RR = 1.18; 95 % CI 1.06–1.32) or multiple births (RR = 1.16; 95 % CI 1.05–1.27) were separately compared with spontaneously conceived twin or multiple births. Substantial heterogeneity was observed across studies (I = 68, 44, 39, and 33 % for all infants, singletons, twins and multiples, respectively). Whether confounding factors were matched or adjusted, study quality and sample size as the first three of the most relevant heterogeneity moderators have been identified. No evidence of publication bias was observed (P > 0.10). Conclusions: The ART-conceived infants have a higher risk of CM compared with those conceived naturally. However, these estimates have to be viewed with caution because of heterogeneity.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84941188670&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-015-3707-0; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25877221; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00404-015-3707-0; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-015-3707-0; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00404-015-3707-0
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know