UCL Discovery
UCL home » Library Services » Electronic resources » UCL Discovery

Medically Assisted Reproduction Treatment Types and Birth Outcomes: A Between- and Within-Family Analysis

Pelikh, A; Smith, K; Myrskylä, M; Goisis, A; (2022) Medically Assisted Reproduction Treatment Types and Birth Outcomes: A Between- and Within-Family Analysis. Obstetrics & Gynecology , 139 (2) pp. 211-222. 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004655. Green open access

[thumbnail of Pelikh_Medically_Assisted_Reproduction_Treatment_Types.9.pdf]
Preview
Text
Pelikh_Medically_Assisted_Reproduction_Treatment_Types.9.pdf

Download (555kB) | Preview

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare risks of adverse birth outcomes among pregnancies conceived with and without medically assisted reproduction treatments. METHODS: Birth certificates were used to study birth outcomes of all neonates born in Utah from 2009 through 2017. Of the 469,919 deliveries, 52.8% (N=248,013) were included in the sample, with 5.2% of the neonates conceived through medically assisted reproduction. The outcome measures included birth weight, gestational age, low birth weight (LBW, less than 2,500 g), preterm birth (less than 37 weeks of gestation), and small for gestational age (SGA, birth weight less than the 10th percentile). Linear models were estimated for the continuous outcomes (birth weight, gestational age), and linear probability models were used for the binary outcomes (LBW, preterm birth, SGA). First, we compared the birth outcomes of neonates born after medically assisted reproduction and natural conception in the overall sample (between-family analyses), before and after adjustment for parental background and neonatal characteristics. Second, we employed family fixed effect models to investigate whether the birth outcomes of neonates conceived through medically assisted reproduction differed from those of their naturally conceived siblings (within-family comparisons). RESULTS: Neonates conceived through medically assisted reproduction weighed less, were born earlier, and were more likely to be LBW, preterm, and SGA than neonates conceived naturally. More invasive treatments (assisted reproductive technology [ART] and artificial insemination [AI] or intrauterine insemination) were associated with worse birth outcomes; for example, the proportion of LBW and preterm birth was 6.1% and 7.9% among neonates conceived naturally and 25.5% and 29.8% among neonates conceived through ART, respectively. After adjustments for various neonatal and parental characteristics, the differences in birth outcomes between neonates conceived through medically assisted reproduction and naturally were attenuated yet remained statistically significant; for example, neonates conceived through ART were at 3.2 percentage points higher risk for LBW (95% CI 2.4–4.1) and 4.8 percentage points higher risk for preterm birth (95% CI 3.9–5.7). Among siblings, the differences in the frequency of adverse outcomes between neonates conceived through medically assisted reproduction and neonates conceived naturally were small and statistically insignificant for all types of treatments. CONCLUSION: Medically assisted reproduction treatments are associated with adverse birth outcomes; however, those risks are unlikely to be associated with the infertility treatments itself.

Type: Article
Title: Medically Assisted Reproduction Treatment Types and Birth Outcomes: A Between- and Within-Family Analysis
Open access status: An open access version is available from UCL Discovery
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004655
Publisher version: https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000004655
Language: English
Additional information: This is an Open Access article published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) Licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
UCL classification: UCL
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Education
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Education > UCL Institute of Education
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Education > UCL Institute of Education > IOE - Social Research Institute
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Education > UCL Institute of Education > IOE - Social Research Institute > IOE - Social Science Research Unit
URI: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10138177
Downloads since deposit
0Downloads
Download activity - last month
Download activity - last 12 months
Downloads by country - last 12 months

Archive Staff Only

View Item View Item