Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 384

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 122 of the 122 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assisted reproductive technology and birth defects: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Hansen, Michèle, Kurinczuk, Jennifer J., Milne, Elizabeth, de Klerk, Nicholas, Bower, Carol·2013·Human Reproduction Update

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It has been 10 years since we carried out a systematic search of the literature on birth defect risk in infants born following assisted reproductive technology (ART) compared with non-ART infants. Because of changes to ART practice since that review and the publication of more studies the objective of this review was to include these more recent studies to estimate birth defect risk after ART and to examine birth defect risk separately in ART singletons and multiples. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase and Current Contents databases (1978-2012). We used the same data extraction sheet and questionnaire we had used previously with the addition of a quality score to the questionnaire. Pooled relative risk (RR) estimates were calculated using a random effects model. All data were analysed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis V2. RESULTS: There were 45 cohort studies included in this review. ART infants (n = 92 671) had a higher risk of birth defects [RR 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24-1.42] compared with naturally conceived infants (n = 3 870 760). The risk further increased when data were restricted to major birth defects (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.29-1.56) or singletons only (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.30-1.43). The results for ART multiples were less clear. When all data for multiples were pooled the RR estimate was 1.11 (95% CI 0.98-1.26) but this increased to 1.26 (0.99-1.60) when the analysis was restricted to studies of ART twins where some adjustment was made for differences in zygosity distribution between ART and non-ART multiples. CONCLUSIONS: Birth defects remain more common in ART infants. Further research is required to examine risks for important subgroups of ART exposure.

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/humupd/dmt006

Cites

122 of 122 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 122 references

Cited by

See all 384

Metadata

Authors
Hansen, M., Kurinczuk, J. J., Milne, E., de Klerk, N., & Bower, C.
Venue
Human Reproduction Update
Published
2013-02-28
Volume
19
Issue
4
Pages
330-353
ISSN
  • 1355-4786 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2369
OpenAlex
W2128195657
Cited by
384
References
122
FWCI
4.71
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: Assisted reproductive technology and birth defects: a systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/humupd/dmt006
The paper
Hansen, M., Kurinczuk, J. J., Milne, E., de Klerk, N., & Bower, C. (2013). Assisted reproductive technology and birth defects: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Human Reproduction Update. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmt006

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.