The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies resulting from IVF/ICSI: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Earlier reviews have suggested that IVF/ICSI pregnancies are associated with higher risks. However, there have been recent advances in the way IVF/ICSI is done, leading to some controversy as to whether IVF/ICSI singletons are associated with higher perinatal risks. The objective of this systematic review was to provide an up-to-date comparison of obstetric and perinatal outcomes of the singletons born after IVF/ICSI and compare them with those of spontaneous conceptions. METHODS: Extensive searches were done by two authors. The protocol was agreed a priori. PRISMA guidance was followed. The data were extracted in 2 × 2 tables. Risk ratio and risk difference were calculated on pooled data using Rev Man 5.1. Quality assessment of studies was performed using Critical Appraisal Skills programme. Sensitivity analysis was performed when the heterogeneity was high (I(2) > 50%). RESULTS: There were 20 matched cohort studies and 10 unmatched cohort studies included in this review. IVF/ICSI singleton pregnancies were associated with a higher risk (95% confidence interval) of ante-partum haemorrhage (2.49, 2.30-2.69), congenital anomalies (1.67, 1.33-2.09), hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (1.49, 1.39-1.59), preterm rupture of membranes (1.16, 1.07-1.26), Caesarean section (1.56, 1.51-1.60), low birthweight (1.65, 1.56-1.75), perinatal mortality (1.87, 1.48-2.37), preterm delivery (1.54, 1.47-1.62), gestational diabetes (1.48, 1.33-1.66), induction of labour (1.18, 1.10-1.28) and small for gestational age (1.39, 1.27-1.53). CONCLUSIONS: Singletons pregnancies after IVF/ICSI are associated with higher risks of obstetric and perinatal complications when compared with spontaneous conception. Further research is needed to determine which aspect of assisted reproduction technology poses most risk and how this risk can be minimized.
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
Cited by
Rethinking mechanisms, diagnosis and management of endometriosis
Chapron, C., Marcellin, L., Borghese, B., & Santulli, P. (2019) · Nature Reviews Endocrinology · doi:10.1038/s41574-019-0245-z · Cited by 1,084
Pregnancy complications in women with polycystic ovary syndrome
Palomba, S., de Wilde, M. A., Falbo, A., Koster, M. P. H., La Sala, G. B., & Fauser, B. C. J. M. (2015) · Human Reproduction Update · doi:10.1093/humupd/dmv029 · Cited by 691
Qin, J., Liu, X., Sheng, X., Wang, H., & Gao, S. (2016) · Fertility and Sterility · doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.09.007 · Cited by 518
Vannuccini, S., Clifton, V. L., Fraser, I. S., Taylor, H. S., Critchley, H., Giudice, L. C., & Petraglia, F. (2016) · Human Reproduction Update · doi:10.1093/humupd/dmv044 · Cited by 379
Indications for and Risks of Elective Cesarean Section
Mylonas, I., & Friese, K. (2015) · Deutsches Ärzteblatt international · doi:10.3238/arztebl.2015.0489 · Cited by 359
Metadata
- Authors
- Pandey, S., Shetty, A., Hamilton, M., Bhattacharya, S., & Maheshwari, A.
- Venue
- Human Reproduction Update
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2012-05-19
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 485-503
- ISSN
- 1355-4786 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2369
- OpenAlex
- W2140535499
- Cited by
- 786
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 7.67
- 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: Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies resulting from IVF/ICSI: a systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/humupd/dms018
- The paper
- Pandey, S., Shetty, A., Hamilton, M., Bhattacharya, S., & Maheshwari, A. (2012). Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies resulting from IVF/ICSI: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Human Reproduction Update. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dms018
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.