The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Perinatal outcome of singletons and twins after assisted conception: a systematic review of controlled studies
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the perinatal outcome of singleton and twin pregnancies between natural and assisted conceptions. DESIGN: Systematic review of controlled studies published 1985-2002. STUDIES REVIEWED: 25 studies were included of which 17 had matched and 8 had non-matched controls. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Very preterm birth, preterm birth, very low birth weight, low birth weight, small for gestational age, caesarean section, admission to neonatal intensive care unit, and perinatal mortality. RESULTS: For singletons, studies with matched controls indicated a relative risk of 3.27 (95% confidence interval 2.03 to 5.28) for very preterm (< 32 weeks) and 2.04 (1.80 to 2.32) for preterm (< 37 weeks) birth in pregnancies after assisted conception. Relative risks were 3.00 (2.07 to 4.36) for very low birth weight (< 1500 g), 1.70 (1.50 to 1.92) for low birth weight (< 2500 g), 1.40 (1.15 to 1.71) for small for gestational age, 1.54 (1.44 to 1.66) for caesarean section, 1.27 (1.16 to 1.40) for admission to a neonatal intensive care unit, and 1.68 (1.11 to 2.55) for perinatal mortality. Results of the non-matched studies were similar. In matched studies of twin gestations, relative risks were 0.95 (0.78 to 1.15) for very preterm birth, 1.07 (1.02 to 1.13) for preterm birth, 0.89 (0.74 to 1.07) for very low birth weight, 1.03 (0.99 to 1.08) for low birth weight, 1.27 (0.97 to 1.65) for small for gestational age, 1.21 (1.11 to 1.32) for caesarean section, 1.05 (1.01 to 1.09) for admission to a neonatal intensive care unit, and 0.58 (0.44 to 0.77) for perinatal mortality. The non-matched studies mostly showed similar trends. CONCLUSIONS: Singleton pregnancies from assisted reproduction have a significantly worse perinatal outcome than non-assisted singleton pregnancies, but this is less so for twin pregnancies. In twin pregnancies, perinatal mortality is about 40% lower after assisted compared with natural conception.
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
Developmental Origins of the Metabolic Syndrome: Prediction, Plasticity, and Programming
Mcmillen, I. C., & Robinson, J. S. (2005) · Physiological Reviews · doi:10.1152/physrev.00053.2003 · Cited by 1,910
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
McDonald, S. D., Han, Z., Mulla, S., Murphy, K. E., Beyene, J., & Ohlsson, A. (2009) · European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology · doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.05.035 · Cited by 435
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
Elevated risks of pregnancy complications and adverse outcomes with increasing maternal age
Luke, B., & Brown, M. B. (2007) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/humrep/del522 · Cited by 375
Metadata
- Authors
- Helmerhorst, F. M.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2004-01-31
- Volume
- 328
- Issue
- 7434
- Pages
- 261-0
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2120724095
- Cited by
- 1,106
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.01
- 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: Perinatal outcome of singletons and twins after assisted conception: a systematic review of controlled studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.37957.560278.ee
- The paper
- Helmerhorst, F. M. (2004). Perinatal outcome of singletons and twins after assisted conception: a systematic review of controlled studies. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.37957.560278.ee
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.