Ovarian Stimulation, Intrauterine Insemination, Multiple Pregnancy and Major Congenital Malformations: A Systematic Review and Meta- Analysis- The ART_Rev Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: Multiple pregnancies are a recognized adverse effect of assisted reproductive technologies; nevertheless, there is no consensus on the incremental risk associated with the ovarian stimulation (OS) used alone and intrauterine insemination (IUI). The relationship between OS and IUI and the risk of major congenital malformations (MCM) is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To summarise the literature and evaluate the risk of multiple pregnancy and MCM associated with OS used alone and IUI used with or without OS compared to natural conception (spontaneously conceived infants without any type of fertility treatments). METHODS: We carried out a systematic review to identify published papers between 1966 and 2014 in MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We included observational studies and randomized clinical trials related to the risk of multiple pregnancies and MCM conceived following OS alone or IUI compared to natural conception (spontaneously conceived infants without any fertility treatments). The quality of the included studies was evaluated using The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. RESULTS: There were 63 studies included in this review. Our systematic review suggests that the use of any OS alone was associated with an increased risk of multiple pregnancy compared to natural conception (pooled RR 8.80, 95% CI 5.09- 15.20; p= 0.000; 9 studies). Similar increases in the risk of multiple pregnancies were observed following clomiphene citrate used without assisted reproductive technologies. Compared to natural conception, the use of IUI with or without OS was associated with an increased risk of multiple pregnancy (pooled RR 9.73, 95% CI 7.52 -12.60; p= 0.000; 6 studies). Compared to natural conception, the use of any OS alone was associated with an increased risk of any MCM (RR pooled 1.18, 95%CI 1.03-1.36; 11 studies), major musculoskeletal malformations (pooled RR 1.48, 95%CI 1.21-1.81; 7 studies), and malformations of the nervous system (pooled RR 1.73, 95%CI 1.15-2.61; 6 studies). Compared to natural conception, the use of IUI was associated with an increased risk of any MCM (pooled RR 1.23, 95%CI 1.10-1.37; 10 studies), major urogenital (pooled RR 1.52, 95%CI 1.04-2.22; 7 studies), and musculoskeletal malformations (pooled RR 1.54, 95%CI 1.20-1.98; 7 studies). The overall quality of the included studies was acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: The increased risk of multiple pregnancy and certain types of MCM associated with the use of less invasive fertility treatments, such as OS and IUI, found in this review, highlights the importance of the practice framing. Heterogeneity in OS protocols, the combination with other fertility agents, the limited number of studies and the methodological quality differences reduce our ability to draw conclusions on specific treatment. More observational studies, assessing the risk of multiple pregnancy or MCM, as a primary outcome, using standardized methodologies, in larger and better clinically defined populations are needed.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,027 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,016 | 0,026 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,008 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».