The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assisted reproductive technologies and the risk of birth defects—a systematic review
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The risk of birth defects in infants born following assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment is a controversial question. Most publications examining the prevalence of birth defects in ICSI and IVF infants compared to spontaneously conceived infants have serious methodological limitations; despite this, most researchers have concluded that there is no increased risk. METHODS: We carried out a systematic review to identify all papers published by March 2003 with data relating to the prevalence of birth defects in infants conceived following IVF and/or ICSI compared with spontaneously conceived infants. Independent expert reviewers used criteria defined a priori to determine whether studies were suitable for inclusion in a meta-analysis. Fixed effects meta-analysis was performed for all studies and reviewer-selected studies. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies were identified for review. Two-thirds of these showed a 25% or greater increased risk of birth defects in ART infants. The results of meta-analyses of the seven reviewer-selected studies and of all 25 studies suggest a statistically significant 30-40% increased risk of birth defects associated with ART. CONCLUSIONS: Pooled results from all suitable published studies suggest that children born following ART are at increased risk of birth defects compared with spontaneous conceptions. This information should be made available to couples seeking ART treatment.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cites
Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology<SUBTITLE>A Proposal for Reporting</SUBTITLE>
Stroup, D. F. (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 · Cited by 20,623
Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis
Sterne, J. A. C., Egger, M., & Smith, G. D. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7304.101 · Cited by 2,225
Cited by
DNA methylation and gene expression differences in children conceived in vitro or in vivo
Katari, S., Turan, N., Bibikova, M., Erinle, O., Chalian, R., Foster, M., Gaughan, J. P., Coutifaris, C., & Sapienza, C. (2009) · Human Molecular Genetics · doi:10.1093/hmg/ddp319 · Cited by 470
Assisted reproductive technology and major structural birth defects in the United States
Reefhuis, J., Honein, M. A., Schieve, L. A., Correa, A., Hobbs, C. A., Rasmussen, S. A., & Study, T. N. B. D. P. (2009) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/humrep/den387 · Cited by 306
Sperm chromatin structure and male fertility: biological and clinical aspects
Erenpreiss, J., Spano, M., Erenpreisa, J., Bungum, M., & Giwercman, A. (2006) · Asian Journal of Andrology · doi:10.1111/j.1745-7262.2006.00112.x · Cited by 304
Association between maternal age and birth defects of unknown etiology ― United States, 1997–2007
Gill, S. K., Broussard, C., Devine, O., Green, R. F., Rasmussen, S. A., Reefhuis, J., & Study, A. T. N. B. D. P. (2012) · Birth Defects Research Part A: Clinical and Molecular Teratology · doi:10.1002/bdra.23049 · Cited by 153
Preimplantation genetic diagnosis at 20 years
Simpson, J. L. (2010) · Prenatal Diagnosis · doi:10.1002/pd.2552 · Cited by 117
Metadata
- Authors
- Hansen, M., Bower, C., Milne, E., de Klerk, N., & J.Kurinczuk, J.
- Venue
- Human Reproduction
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2005-02-01
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 328-338
- ISSN
- 0268-1161 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2350
- OpenAlex
- W2066312343
- Cited by
- 704
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 3.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Assisted reproductive technologies and the risk of birth defects—a systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/humrep/deh593
- The paper
- Hansen, M., Bower, C., Milne, E., de Klerk, N., & J.Kurinczuk, J. (2005). Assisted reproductive technologies and the risk of birth defects—a systematic review. Human Reproduction. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deh593
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.