4.7 Article

Research hurdles complicating the analysis of infertility treatment and child health

Journal

HUMAN REPRODUCTION
Volume 20, Issue 1, Pages 12-18

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deh542

Keywords

assisted reproductive technologies; child health; correlated outcomes; design; hierarchical models

Funding

  1. EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT [ZIAHD008762] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH &HUMAN DEVELOPMENT [Z01HD008762] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Research aimed at the empirical evaluation of infertility treatment including assisted reproductive technologies (ART) on child health and development is hampered by investigators' inability to methodologically separate possible treatment effects from underlying fecundity impairments. While the literature continues to identify ART as a risk factor for many child health outcomes, less attention has been paid to the methodologic rigor needed to answer this question. We identify aspects of fecundity and the nuances of medical practice that need to be considered and captured when designing epidemiologic investigations aimed at assessing ART and child health. These include: (i) the use of prospective study designs in which the unit of analysis (cycle versus individual versus couple) is defined; (ii) data collection on relevant time-varying covariates at, before and during treatment; and (iii) the use of statistical techniques appropriate for hierarchical data and correlated exposures. While none of these issues in and by itself is unique to ART research, attention to these issues has been lacking in much of the published research limiting our ability to evaluate health consequences for children. Longitudinal studies of children conceived with ART will benefit from attention to these issues and, hopefully, produce answers to lingering questions about safety.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available