4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Increased risk of preterm birth in singleton pregnancies resulting from in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer or gamete intrafallopian transfer: a meta-analysis

期刊

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
卷 82, 期 6, 页码 1514-1520

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.06.038

关键词

gonadotropin stimulation; preterm birth; pregnancy outcome; infertility treatment; assisted reproductive technology; in vitro fertilization

资金

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [HD 22338, 1-U10-HD38999] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To perform a systematic review of the literature to determine whether singleton pregnancies resulting from IVF-ET/GIFT are at higher risk for preterm birth (<37 weeks). Design: Literature search and systematic review. Setting: Medical school. Intervention(s): A MEDLINE search (1965-2000) was performed using the terms premature labor, infertility, pregnancy complications, gonadotropins, pregnancy outcome, preterm delivery, and in vitro fertilization. Criteria for inclusion were English language, original research article, study patients conceived using IVF-ET (with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection) or GIFT, pregnancy outcome reported compared with a control group (e.g., naturally conceived singletons at their hospital or a national reference), and prematurity clearly defined. Incomplete articles (e.g., abstracts), reports of other studies, and studies that failed to separate multiple from singleton gestations were excluded. Main Outcome Measure(s): Summary of relative risks of preterm birth. Result(s): Twenty-seven articles met all inclusion/exclusion criteria and were analyzed by meta-analysis. The random-effects summary relative risk of preterm birth in singleton pregnancies resulting from IVF-ET/GIFT was 1.98 (95% confidence interval, 1.77-2.22). Conclusion(s): The risk of preterm birth in singleton pregnancies resulting from IVF-ET/GIFT is twice that of natural conceived pregnancies. (C) 2004 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据