Perinatal outcome in children born after assisted reproductive technologies

References

• Adamsson G, Dyer S, Chambers G, Ishihara O, Mansour R, Banker M, et al. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ICMART) Preliminary World Report on ART, 2015. Abstract ESHRE, Vienna. 2019.
   Google Scholar
• De Geyter C, Calhaz-Jorge C, Kupka MS, Wyns C, Mocanu E, Motrenko T, et al. ART in Europe, 2014: results generated from European registries by ESHRE: The European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM) for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 2018;33:1586–601.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boulet SL, Mehta A, Kissin DM, Warner L, Kawwass JF, Jamieson DJ. Trends in use of and reproductive outcomes associated with intracytoplasmic sperm injection. JAMA. 2015;313:255–63. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.17985
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roque M, Haahr T, Geber S, Esteves SC, Humaidan P. Fresh versus elective frozen embryo transfer in IVF/ICSI cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis of reproductive outcomes. Hum Reprod Update. 2019;25:2–14. doi:10.1093/humupd/dmy033
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qin J, Liu X, Sheng X, Wang H, Gao S. Assisted reproductive technology and the risk of pregnancy-related complications and adverse pregnancy outcomes in singleton pregnancies: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:73–85.e1-6. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.09.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qin JB, Sheng XQ, Wu D, Gao SY, You YP, Yang TB, et al. Worldwide prevalence of adverse pregnancy outcomes among singleton pregnancies after in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;295:285–301. doi:10.1007/s00404-016-4250-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen M, Kurinczuk JJ, Milne E, de Klerk N, Bower C. Assisted reproductive technology and birth defects: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;19:330–53. doi:10.1093/humupd/dmt006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinborg A, Henningsen AK, Malchau SS, Loft A. Congenital anomalies after assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:327–32. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.12.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sunderam S, Kissin DM, Zhang Y, Folger SG, Boulet SL, Warner L, et al. Assisted reproductive technology surveillance – United States, 2016. Mmwr Surveill Summ. 2019;68:1–23. doi:10.15585/mmwr.ss6804a1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berntsen S, Soderstrom-Anttila V, Wennerholm UB, Laivuori H, Loft A, Oldereid NB, et al. The health of children conceived by ART: 'the chicken or the egg?' Hum Reprod Update. 2019;25:137–58. doi:10.1093/humupd/dmz001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helmerhorst FM, Perquin DA, Donker D, Keirse MJ. Perinatal outcome of singletons and twins after assisted conception: a systematic review of controlled studies. BMJ (Clin Res Ed). 2004;328:261. doi:10.1136/bmj.37957.560278.EE
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson RA, Gibson KA, Wu YW, Croughan MS. Perinatal outcomes in singletons following in vitro fertilization: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103:551–63. doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000114989.84822.51
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGovern PG, Llorens AJ, Skurnick JH, Weiss G, Goldsmith LT. Increased risk of preterm birth in singleton pregnancies resulting from in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer or gamete intrafallopian transfer: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2004;82:1514–20. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.06.038
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald SD, Han Z, Mulla S, Murphy KE, Beyene J, Ohlsson A. Preterm birth and low birth weight among in vitro fertilization singletons: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009;146:138–48. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.05.035
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pandey S, Shetty A, Hamilton M, Bhattacharya S, Maheshwari A. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies resulting from IVF/ICSI: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2012;18:485–503. doi:10.1093/humupd/dms018
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henningsen AA, Wennerholm UB, Gissler M, Romundstad LB, Nygren KG, Tiitinen A, et al. Risk of stillbirth and infant deaths after assisted reproductive technology: a Nordic study from the CoNARTaS group. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 2014; 29:1090–6. doi:10.1093/humrep/deu031
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marino JL, Moore VM, Willson KJ, Rumbold A, Whitrow MJ, Giles LC, et al. Perinatal outcomes by mode of assisted conception and sub-fertility in an Australian data linkage cohort. PLoS One. 2014;9:e80398. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0080398
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomopoulos C, Tsioufis C, Michalopoulou H, Makris T, Papademetriou V, Stefanadis C. Assisted reproductive technology and pregnancy-related hypertensive complications: a systematic review. J Hum Hypertens. 2013;27:148–57. doi:10.1038/jhh.2012.13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Opdahl S, Henningsen AA, Tiitinen A, Bergh C, Pinborg A, Romundstad PR, et al. Risk of hypertensive disorders in pregnancies following assisted reproductive technology: a cohort study from the CoNARTaS group. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 2015;30:1724–31. doi:10.1093/humrep/dev090
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gui J, Ling Z, Hou X, Fan Y, Xie K, Shen R. In vitro fertilization is associated with the onset and progression of preeclampsia. Placenta. 2020;89:50–7. doi:10.1016/j.placenta.2019.09.011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cavoretto P, Candiani M, Giorgione V, Inversetti A, Abu-Saba MM, Tiberio F, et al. Risk of spontaneous preterm birth in singleton pregnancies conceived after IVF/ICSI treatment: meta-analysis of cohort studies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;51:43–53. doi:10.1002/uog.18930
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinborg A, Wennerholm UB, Romundstad LB, Loft A, Aittomaki K, Soderstrom-Anttila V, et al. Why do singletons conceived after assisted reproduction technology have adverse perinatal outcome? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;19:87–104. doi:10.1093/humupd/dms044
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glujovsky D, Farquhar C, Quinteiro Retamar AM, Alvarez Sedo CR, Blake D. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;30:Cd002118.
   Google Scholar
• Martins WP, Nastri CO, Rienzi L, van der Poel SZ, Gracia C, Racowsky C. Blastocyst vs cleavage-stage embryo transfer: systematic review and meta-analysis of reproductive outcomes. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;49:583–91. doi:10.1002/uog.17327
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang X, Du M, Guan Y, Wang B, Zhang J, Liu Z. Comparative neonatal outcomes in singleton births from blastocyst transfers or cleavage-stage embryo transfers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2017;15:36. doi:10.1186/s12958-017-0255-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alviggi C, Conforti A, Carbone IF, Borrelli R, de Placido G, Guerriero S. Influence of cryopreservation on perinatal outcome after blastocyst- vs cleavage-stage embryo transfer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;51:54–63. doi:10.1002/uog.18942
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ginstrom Ernstad E, Bergh C, Khatibi A, Kallen KB, Westlander G, Nilsson S, et al. Neonatal and maternal outcome after blastocyst transfer: a population-based registry study. Am J Obstet and Gynecol. 2016;214:378.e1–e10. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2015.12.040
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ding J, Yin T, Zhang Y, Zhou D, Yang J. The effect of blastocyst transfer on newborn sex ratio and monozygotic twinning rate: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2018;37:292–303. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.05.015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hviid KVR, Malchau SS, Pinborg A, Nielsen HS. Determinants of monozygotic twinning in ART: a systematic review and a meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2018;24:468–83. doi:10.1093/humupd/dmy006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu H, Liu J, Chen S, Kang X, Du H, Li L. Elevated incidence of monozygotic twinning is associated with extended embryo culture, but not with zona pellucida manipulation or freeze-thaw procedure. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:1044–50. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.01.040
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang HJ, Lee JR, Jee BC, Suh CS, Kim SH. Impact of blastocyst transfer on offspring sex ratio and the monozygotic twinning rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:2381–90. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.03.066
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dar S, Lazer T, Shah PS, Librach CL. Neonatal outcomes among singleton births after blastocyst versus cleavage stage embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20:439–48. doi:10.1093/humupd/dmu001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hattori H, Kitamura A, Takahashi F, Kobayashi N, Sato A, Miyauchi N, et al. The risk of secondary sex ratio imbalance and increased monozygotic twinning after blastocyst transfer: data from the Japan Environment and Children's Study. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2019;17:27. doi:10.1186/s12958-019-0471-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wennerholm UB, Soderstrom-Anttila V, Bergh C, Aittomaki K, Hazekamp J, Nygren KG, et al. Children born after cryopreservation of embryos or oocytes: a systematic review of outcome data. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 2009;24:2158–72. doi:10.1093/humrep/dep125
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maheshwari A, Pandey S, Shetty A, Hamilton M, Bhattacharya S. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies resulting from the transfer of frozen thawed versus fresh embryos generated through in vitro fertilization treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:368–77.e1-9. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.05.019
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao J, Xu B, Zhang Q, Li YP. Which one has a better obstetric and perinatal outcome in singleton pregnancy, IVF/ICSI or FET?: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2016;14:51. doi:10.1186/s12958-016-0188-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maheshwari A, Pandey S, Amalraj Raja E, Shetty A, Hamilton M, Bhattacharya S. Is frozen embryo transfer better for mothers and babies? Can cumulative meta-analysis provide a definitive answer?. Hum Reprod Update. 2018;24:35–58. doi:10.1093/humupd/dmx031
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Versen-Hoynck F, Hackl S, Selamet Tierney ES, Conrad KP, Baker VL, Winn VD. Maternal Vascular Health in Pregnancy and Postpartum After Assisted Reproduction. Hypertension (Dallas, Tex: 1979). 2020;75:549–60. doi:10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.119.13779
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Versen-Hoynck F, Schaub AM, Chi YY, Chiu KH, Liu J, Lingis M, et al. Increased preeclampsia risk and reduced aortic compliance with in vitro fertilization cycles in the absence of a corpus luteum. Hypertension (Dallas, Tex : 1979). 2019;73:640–9. doi:10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.118.12043
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ginstrom Ernstad E, Wennerholm UB, Khatibi A, Petzold M, Bergh C. Neonatal and maternal outcome after frozen embryo transfer: Increased risks in programmed cycles. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;221:126.e1–e18. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2019.03.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AbdelHafez FF, Desai N, Abou-Setta AM, Falcone T, Goldfarb J. Slow freezing, vitrification and ultra-rapid freezing of human embryos: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;20:209–22. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2009.11.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rienzi L, Gracia C, Maggiulli R, LaBarbera AR, Kaser DJ, Ubaldi FM, et al. Oocyte, embryo and blastocyst cryopreservation in ART: systematic review and meta-analysis comparing slow-freezing versus vitrification to produce evidence for the development of global guidance. Hum Reprod Update. 2017;23:139–55. doi:10.1093/humupd/dmw038
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gu F, Li S, Zheng L, Gu J, Li T, Du H, et al. Perinatal outcomes of singletons following vitrification versus slow-freezing of embryos: a multicenter cohort study using propensity score analysis. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 2019;34:1788–98. doi:10.1093/humrep/dez095
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li Z, Wang YA, Ledger W, Edgar DH, Sullivan EA. Clinical outcomes following cryopreservation of blastocysts by vitrification or slow freezing: a population-based cohort study. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 2014;29:2794–801. doi:10.1093/humrep/deu246
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ginstrom Ernstad E, Spangmose AL, Opdahl S, Henningsen AA, Romundstad LB, Tiitinen A, et al. Perinatal and maternal outcome after vitrification of blastocysts: a Nordic study in singletons from the CoNARTaS group. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 2019;34:2282–9. doi:10.1093/humrep/dez212
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreno-Sepulveda J, Checa MA. Risk of adverse perinatal outcomes after oocyte donation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36:2017–37. doi:10.1007/s10815-019-01552-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz KM, Boulet SL, Kawwass JF, Kissin DM. Perinatal outcomes among young donor oocyte recipients. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 2019;34:2533–40. doi:10.1093/humrep/dez213
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lashley LE, Haasnoot GW, Spruyt-Gerritse M, Claas FH. Selective advantage of HLA matching in successful uncomplicated oocyte donation pregnancies. J Reprod Immunol. 2015;112:29–33. doi:10.1016/j.jri.2015.05.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Storgaard M, Loft A, Bergh C, Wennerholm UB, Soderstrom-Anttila V, Romundstad LB, et al. Obstetric and neonatal complications in pregnancies conceived after oocyte donation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2017;124:561–72. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.14257
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen M, Bower C, Milne E, de Klerk N, Kurinczuk JJ. Assisted reproductive technologies and the risk of birth defects – a systematic review. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 2005;20:328–38. doi:10.1093/humrep/deh593
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rimm AA, Katayama AC, Diaz M, Katayama KP. A meta-analysis of controlled studies comparing major malformation rates in IVF and ICSI infants with naturally conceived children. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2004;21:437–43. doi:10.1007/s10815-004-8760-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao J, Yan Y, Huang X, Li Y. Do the children born after assisted reproductive technology have an increased risk of birth defects? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020;33:322–33. doi:10.1080/14767058.2018.1488168
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henningsen AA, Bergh C, Skjaerven R, Tiitinen A, Wennerholm UB, Romundstad LB, et al. Trends over time in congenital malformations in live-born children conceived after assisted reproductive technology. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2018;97:816–23. doi:10.1111/aogs.13347
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giorgione V, Parazzini F, Fesslova V, Cipriani S, Candiani M, Inversetti A, et al. Congenital heart defects in IVF/ICSI pregnancy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;51:33–42. doi:10.1002/uog.18932
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lie RT, Lyngstadass A, Ørstavik KH, Bakketeig LS, Jacobsen G, Tanbo T. Birth defects in children conceived by ICSI compared with children conceived by other IVF-methods; a meta-analysis. Int J Epidemiol. 2005;34:696–701. doi:10.1093/ije/dyh363
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wen J, Jiang J, Ding C, Dai J, Liu Y, Xia Y, et al. Birth defects in children conceived by in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:1331–7.e1-4. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.02.053
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies MJ, Moore VM, Willson KJ, Van Essen P, Priest K, Scott H, et al. Reproductive technologies and the risk of birth defects. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1803–13. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1008095
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Massaro PA, MacLellan DL, Anderson PA, Romao RL. Does intracytoplasmic sperm injection pose an increased risk of genitourinary congenital malformations in offspring compared to in vitro fertilization? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol. 2015;193:1837–42. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2014.10.113
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holte TO, Hofmann B, Lie RT, Norderhaug IN, Romundstad P, Saeterdal I, et al. Male infertility: intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) using surgically retrieved sperm from the testis or the epididymis. NIPH Systematic Reviews: Executive Summaries, Oslo, Norway; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Woldringh GH, Besselink DE, Tillema AH, Hendriks JC, Kremer JA. Karyotyping, congenital anomalies and follow-up of children after intracytoplasmic sperm injection with non-ejaculated sperm: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16:12–9. doi:10.1093/humupd/dmp030
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fedder J, Loft A, Parner ET, Rasmussen S, Pinborg A. Neonatal outcome and congenital malformations in children born after ICSI with testicular or epididymal sperm: a controlled national cohort study. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 2013;28:230–40. doi:10.1093/humrep/des377
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oldereid NB, Hanevik HI, Bakkevig I, Romundstad LB, Magnus O, Hazekamp J, et al. Pregnancy outcome according to male diagnosis after ICSI with non-ejaculated sperm compared with ejaculated sperm controls. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;29:417–23. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.06.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pelkonen S, Hartikainen AL, Ritvanen A, Koivunen R, Martikainen H, Gissler M, et al. Major congenital anomalies in children born after frozen embryo transfer: a cohort study 1995–2006. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 2014;29:1552–7. doi:10.1093/humrep/deu088
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maheshwari A, Raja EA, Bhattacharya S. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes after either fresh or thawed frozen embryo transfer: an analysis of 112,432 singleton pregnancies recorded in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority anonymized dataset. Fertil Steril. 2016;106:1703–8. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.08.047
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belva F, Bonduelle M, Roelants M, Verheyen G, Van Landuyt L. Neonatal health including congenital malformation risk of 1072 children born after vitrified embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2016;31:1610–20. doi:10.1093/humrep/dew103
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kallen B, Finnstrom O, Lindam A, Nilsson E, Nygren KG, Olausson PO. Blastocyst versus cleavage stage transfer in in vitro fertilization: differences in neonatal outcome? Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1680–3. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.12.027
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martins WP, Nastri CO, Rienzi L, van der Poel SZ, Gracia CR, Racowsky C. Obstetrical and perinatal outcomes following blastocyst transfer compared to cleavage transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2016;31:2561–9. doi:10.1093/humrep/dew244
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonduelle M, Van AE, Joris H, Keymolen K, Devroey P, Van SA, et al. Prenatal testing in ICSI pregnancies: incidence of chromosomal anomalies in 1586 karyotypes and relation to sperm parameters. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 2002;17:2600–14. doi:10.1093/humrep/17.10.2600
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belva F, De Schrijver F, Tournaye H, Liebaers I, Devroey P, Haentjens P, et al. Neonatal outcome of 724 children born after ICSI using non-ejaculated sperm. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 2011;26:1752–8. doi:10.1093/humrep/der121
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henningsen AA, Gissler M, Skjaerven R, Bergh C, Tiitinen A, Romundstad LB, et al. Trends in perinatal health after assisted reproduction: a Nordic study from the CoNARTaS group. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 2015;30:710–6. doi:10.1093/humrep/deu345
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamath MS, Antonisamy B, Selliah HY, Sunkara SK. Perinatal outcomes of singleton live births with and without vanishing twin following transfer of multiple embryos: analysis of 113 784 singleton live births. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 2018;33:2018–22. doi:10.1093/humrep/dey284
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thurin A, Hausken J, Hillensjo T, Jablonowska B, Pinborg A, Strandell A, et al. Elective single-embryo transfer versus double-embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2392–402. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa041032
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergh T, Ericson A, Hillensjo T, Nygren KG, Wennerholm UB. Deliveries and children born after in-vitro fertilisation in Sweden 1982–95: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet (London, England). 1999;354:1579–85. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(99)04345-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinborg A, Loft A, Nyboe Andersen A. Neonatal outcome in a Danish national cohort of 8602 children born after in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection: the role of twin pregnancy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2004;83:1071–8. doi:10.1111/j.0001-6349.2004.00476.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sazonova A, Kallen K, Thurin-Kjellberg A, Wennerholm UB, Bergh C. Neonatal and maternal outcomes comparing women undergoing two in vitro fertilization (IVF) singleton pregnancies and women undergoing one IVF twin pregnancy. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:731–7. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.11.023
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu JL, Basso O, Obel C, Bille C, Olsen J. Infertility, infertility treatment, and congenital malformations: Danish national birth cohort. BMJ (Clin Res Ed). 2006;333:679. doi:10.1136/bmj.38919.495718.AE
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ACOG Committee Opinion No. 743: Low-dose aspirin use during pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132:e44–e52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romero R, Conde-Agudelo A, Da Fonseca E, O'Brien JM, Cetingoz E, Creasy GW, et al. Vaginal progesterone for preventing preterm birth and adverse perinatal outcomes in singleton gestations with a short cervix: a meta-analysis of individual patient data. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218:161–80. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2017.11.576
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Opdahl S, Henningsen AA, Bergh C, Gissler M, Romundstad LB, Petzold M, et al. Data resource profile: the Committee of Nordic Assisted Reproductive Technology and Safety (CoNARTaS) cohort. Int J Epidemiol. 2019; doi:10.1093/ije/dyz228
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar