Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 809

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Reproductive Technologies and the Risk of Birth Defects

Open access
Davies, Michael J., Moore, Vivienne M., Willson, Kristyn J., Van Essen, Phillipa, Priest, Kevin, Scott, Heather, Haan, Eric A., Chan, Annabelle·2012·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The extent to which birth defects after infertility treatment may be explained by underlying parental factors is uncertain. METHODS: We linked a census of treatment with assisted reproductive technology in South Australia to a registry of births and terminations with a gestation period of at least 20 weeks or a birth weight of at least 400 g and registries of birth defects (including cerebral palsy and terminations for defects at any gestational period). We compared risks of birth defects (diagnosed before a child's fifth birthday) among pregnancies in women who received treatment with assisted reproductive technology, spontaneous pregnancies (i.e., without assisted conception) in women who had a previous birth with assisted conception, pregnancies in women with a record of infertility but no treatment with assisted reproductive technology, and pregnancies in women with no record of infertility. RESULTS: Of the 308,974 births, 6163 resulted from assisted conception. The unadjusted odds ratio for any birth defect in pregnancies involving assisted conception (513 defects, 8.3%) as compared with pregnancies not involving assisted conception (17,546 defects, 5.8%) was 1.47 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.33 to 1.62); the multivariate-adjusted odds ratio was 1.28 (95% CI, 1.16 to 1.41). The corresponding odds ratios with in vitro fertilization (IVF) (165 birth defects, 7.2%) were 1.26 (95% CI, 1.07 to 1.48) and 1.07 (95% CI, 0.90 to 1.26), and the odds ratios with intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) (139 defects, 9.9%) were 1.77 (95% CI, 1.47 to 2.12) and 1.57 (95% CI, 1.30 to 1.90). A history of infertility, either with or without assisted conception, was also significantly associated with birth defects. CONCLUSIONS: The increased risk of birth defects associated with IVF was no longer significant after adjustment for parental factors. The risk of birth defects associated with ICSI remained increased after multivariate adjustment, although the possibility of residual confounding cannot be excluded. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Australian Research Council.).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa1008095

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 809

Metadata

Authors
Davies, M. J., Moore, V. M., Willson, K. J., Van Essen, P., Priest, K., Scott, H., Haan, E. A., & Chan, A.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2012-05-10
Volume
366
Issue
19
Pages
1803-1813
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2126503856
Cited by
809
References
0
FWCI
67.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reproductive Technologies and the Risk of Birth Defects. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa1008095
The paper
Davies, M. J., Moore, V. M., Willson, K. J., Van Essen, P., Priest, K., Scott, H., Haan, E. A., & Chan, A. (2012). Reproductive Technologies and the Risk of Birth Defects. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1008095

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.