Cited by 330Assisted Reproductive Technology and Twin PregnancyReproductive Health and TechnologiesReproductive Biology and Fertility

Neonatal and maternal outcome after frozen embryo transfer: Increased risks in programmed cycles

Ginström Ernstad, Erica, Wennerholm, Ulla-Britt, Khatibi, Ali, Petzold, Max, Bergh, Christina·2019·American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract

Background Frozen embryo transfer is associated with better perinatal outcome regarding preterm birth and low birthweight, yet higher risk of large for gestational age and macrosomia compared to fresh transfer. Further, higher rates of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy are noted after frozen embryo transfer. Whether these differences are due to the protocol used in frozen cycles remains unknown. Objective To analyze the obstetric outcome after frozen embryo transfer depending on protocol used. Comparison was also made for frozen vs fresh transfer and for frozen transfer vs spontaneous conception. Study design A population-based retrospective registry study including all singletons born after frozen embryo transfer in Sweden from 2005 to 2015. The in vitro fertilization register was cross-linked with the Medical Birth Register, the Register of Birth Defects, the National Patient Register, the Swedish Neonatal Quality Register, and the Prescribed Drug Register. Singletons after frozen embryo transfer were compared depending on the presence of a corpus luteum in the actual cycle. All frozen transfer singletons were also compared with fresh transfer and spontaneous conception singletons. Primary outcomes were preterm birth ( 1000 mL). Crude and adjusted odds ratio with 95% confidence interval were calculated and adjustment made for relevant confounders. Results A total of 9726 singletons were born after frozen embryo transfer (natural cycles, n = 6297; stimulated cycles, n = 19…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.03.010

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ginström Ernstad, E., Wennerholm, U.-B., Khatibi, A., Petzold, M., & Bergh, C.
Affiliations
  • Sahlgrenska University Hospital (SE)
  • Swedish National Data Service (SE)
Venue
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-08
Volume
221
Issue
2
Pages
126.e1-126.e18
ISSN
0002-9378 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2923104520
Cited by
330
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 57 · 2019: 14
FWCI
46.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Assisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Biology and Fertility
Keywords
frozen embryo transfer, natural cycle, fresh embryo transfer, spontaneous conception, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, postpartum hemorrhage, preterm birth, low birth weight, large for gestational age, macrosomia, maternal outcomes, neonatal outcomes, singletons, in vitro fertilization, embryo cryopreservation, luteal phase support, progesterone
MeSH terms
Adult, Embryo Transfer, Female, Fertilization in Vitro, Fetal Macrosomia, Postpartum Hemorrhage, Humans, Pregnancy, Pregnancy, Prolonged, Registries, Retrospective Studies, Sweden, Cryopreservation, Hypertension, Pregnancy-Induced

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review