The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Obstetric Outcomes and Congenital Abnormalities After In Vitro Maturation, In Vitro Fertilization, and Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare obstetric outcome and congenital abnormalities in pregnancies conceived after in vitro maturation (IVM), in vitro fertilization (IVF), and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) with those in spontaneously conceived controls. METHODS: Data were collected from the McGill Obstetrics and Neonatal Database (MOND). All children were examined and classified in a standard manner. Final data were reviewed 12 months after delivery. Pregnancies by IVM, IVF, and ICSI were compared with those of age- and parity-matched controls. Congenital abnormality, gestational age, birth weight, Apgar scores, cord pH, growth restriction, pregnancy complications, mode of delivery, and multiple pregnancy were compared. RESULTS: A total of 432 children were born from 344 pregnancies after assisted reproductive technology (ART) during the study period (IVM 55, IVF 217, ICSI 160). The observed odds ratios (ORs) for any congenital abnormality were 1.42 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52-3.91) for IVM, 1.21 (95% CI 0.63-2.62) for IVF, and 1.69 (95% CI 0.88-3.26) for ICSI. Twin pregnancy (IVM 21%, IVF 20%, ICSI 17%) and triplet pregnancy (IVM 5%, IVF 3%, ICSI 3%) were higher than those in controls (1.7% twins and 0% triplets) (P<.001). Cesarean delivery rates were higher after ART, even in singleton pregnancies (IVM 39%, IVF 36%, ICSI 36%; controls: 26.3%) (P<.05). Apgar scores, cord pH, growth restriction, and pregnancy complications were comparable in all groups. CONCLUSION: All ART pregnancies are associated with an increased risk of multiple pregnancy, cesarean delivery, and congenital abnormality. Compared with IVF and ICSI, IVM is not associated with any additional risk.
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
Cited by
Pandey, S., Shetty, A., Hamilton, M., Bhattacharya, S., & Maheshwari, A. (2012) · Human Reproduction Update · doi:10.1093/humupd/dms018 · Cited by 786
Pinborg, A., Wennerholm, U. B., Romundstad, L. B., Loft, A., Aittomaki, K., Soderstrom-Anttila, V., Nygren, K. G., Hazekamp, J., & Bergh, C. (2013) · Human Reproduction Update · doi:10.1093/humupd/dms044 · Cited by 698
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
Assisted reproductive technology and birth defects: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Hansen, M., Kurinczuk, J. J., Milne, E., de Klerk, N., & Bower, C. (2013) · Human Reproduction Update · doi:10.1093/humupd/dmt006 · Cited by 384
Wen, J., Jiang, J., Ding, C., Dai, J., Liu, Y., Xia, Y., Liu, J., & Hu, Z. (2012) · Fertility and Sterility · doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.02.053 · Cited by 349
Metadata
- Authors
- Buckett, W. M., Chian, R.-C., Holzer, H., Dean, N., Usher, R., & Tan, S. L.
- Venue
- Obstetrics & Gynecology
- Published
- 2007-10
- Volume
- 110
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 885-891
- ISSN
- 0029-7844 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2054870887
- Cited by
- 250
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 14.42
- 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 Outcomes and Congenital Abnormalities After In Vitro Maturation, In Vitro Fertilization, and Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.aog.0000284627.38540.80
- The paper
- Buckett, W. M., Chian, R.-C., Holzer, H., Dean, N., Usher, R., & Tan, S. L. (2007). Obstetric Outcomes and Congenital Abnormalities After In Vitro Maturation, In Vitro Fertilization, and Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection. Obstetrics & Gynecology. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aog.0000284627.38540.80
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.