Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 296

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Children born after cryopreservation of embryos or oocytes: a systematic review of outcome data

Wennerholm, U.-B., Söderström-Anttila, V., Bergh, C., Aittomäki, K., Hazekamp, J., Nygren, K.-G., Selbing, A., Loft, A.·2009·Human Reproduction

Abstract

BACKGROUND: An estimated 3.5 million children have been born to date using assisted reproduction technologies. We reviewed the data in order to evaluate current knowledge of medical outcome for IVF/ICSI children born after cryopreservation, slow freezing and vitrification of early cleavage stage embryos, blastocysts and oocytes. METHODS: A systematic review was performed. We searched the PubMed, Cochrane and Embase databases from 1984 to September 2008. Inclusion criteria for slow freezing of early cleavage stage embryos were controlled studies reporting perinatal or child outcomes. For slow freezing and vitrification of blastocysts and oocytes, and vitrification of early cleavage stage embryos, case reports on perinatal or child outcomes were also included. Three reviewers independently read and evaluated all selected studies. RESULTS: For early cleavage embryos, data from controlled studies indicated a better or at least as good obstetric outcome, measured as preterm birth and low birthweight for children born after cryopreservation, as compared with children born after fresh cycles. Most studies found comparable malformation rates between frozen and fresh IVF/ICSI. For slow freezing of blastocysts and for vitrification of early cleavage stage embryos, blastocysts and oocytes, limited neonatal data was reported. We found no long-term child follow-up data for any cryopreservation technique. CONCLUSION: Data concerning infant outcome after slow freezing of embryos was reassuring. Properly controlled follow-up studies of neonatal outcome are needed after slow freezing of blastocysts and after vitrification of early cleavage stage embryos, blastocysts and oocytes. In addition, child long-term follow-up studies for all cryopreservation techniques are essential.

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 · 10.1093/humrep/dep125

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 296

Metadata

Authors
Wennerholm, U.-B., Söderström-Anttila, V., Bergh, C., Aittomäki, K., Hazekamp, J., Nygren, K.-G., Selbing, A., & Loft, A.
Venue
Human Reproduction
Published
2009-05-20
Volume
24
Issue
9
Pages
2158-2172
ISSN
  • 0268-1161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2350
OpenAlex
W2144526222
Cited by
296
References
0
FWCI
4.29
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: Children born after cryopreservation of embryos or oocytes: a systematic review of outcome data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/humrep/dep125
The paper
Wennerholm, U.-B., Söderström-Anttila, V., Bergh, C., Aittomäki, K., Hazekamp, J., Nygren, K.-G., Selbing, A., & Loft, A. (2009). Children born after cryopreservation of embryos or oocytes: a systematic review of outcome data. Human Reproduction. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dep125

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.