CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 67Spinal Dysraphism and MalformationsAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin PregnancyReproductive Health and Technologies

Reproductive Factors, Subfertility, and Risk of Neural Tube Defects: A Case-Control Study Based on the Oxford Record Linkage Study Register

Whiteman, D.·2000·American Journal of Epidemiology
DOI 10.1093/aje/152.9.823
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Periconceptual exposure to subfertility treatments is increasingly common, raising concerns about the possibility of malformations in the offspring. The authors conducted a case-control study to determine whether subfertility or its treatment was associated with increased risk of neural tube defects (NTDs). Cases were 694 women diagnosed with an NTD-affected pregnancy in Oxfordshire or West Berkshire, England, between 1970 and 1987. Cases were individually matched on maternal year of birth and year of index pregnancy to controls randomly selected from a computerized database. Data on demographic, reproductive, and obstetric factors were abstracted from patient hospital records. Overall, the period prevalences of subfertility and of subfertility treatment were 7% and 3%, respectively, No evidence was found that the risk of NTD-affected pregnancies was increased by either subfertility (odds ratio (OR) = 1.2, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.7, 2.1) or its treatment (OR = 0.9, 95% CI: 0.4, 2.0). After adjustment, NTD-affected pregnancies were associated with female offspring (OR = 2.3, 95% CI: 1.8, 3.1), multiple birth (OR = 4.8, 95% CI: 1.2, 18.8), and higher numbers of pregnancies (p for trend = 0.005). The findings from this large, population-based study were wholly consistent with those from smaller studies that found no increased risk of NTD associated with exposure to fertility treatments but reported associations with various pregnancy outcomes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/aje/152.9.823

Cites

20 of 20 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

Related

Authors
Whiteman, D.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Whiteman, D.
ORCID
Whiteman, D.
Venue
American Journal of Epidemiology
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2000-11-01
Volume
152
Issue
9
Pages
823-828
ISSN
0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1093/aje/152.9.823
OpenAlex
W2125262832
Cited by
67
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of Oxford
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Spinal Dysraphism and Malformations
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Assisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
Keywords
neural tube defects, subfertility, infertility treatment, reproductive factors, multiple births, parity, offspring sex, pregnancy outcomes
MeSH terms
Adult, Clomiphene, England, Female, Fertility Agents, Female, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Infertility, Male, Medical Record Linkage, Neural Tube Defects, Parity, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Outcome, Registries, Reproduction, Logistic Models, Case-Control Studies, Databases, Factual, Sex Distribution

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