MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133588338 · doi:10.1111/1471-0528.16691

Risk of stillbirth in singleton gestations following in vitro methods of conception: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

2021· review· en· W3133588338 on OpenAlexaffabout
Karen Wong, KR Carson, J P Crane

Bibliographic record

VenueBJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIn vitro fertilisationMeta-analysisMedicineObstetricsOdds ratioIntracytoplasmic sperm injectionSpontaneous conceptionCochrane LibraryGestationPregnancyGynecologyBiologyInternal medicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In vitro methods of conception are associated with adverse perinatal outcomes. It is unclear if the risk of stillbirth is increased also. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the risk of stillbirth in singleton gestations following in vitro methods of conception compared to non-in vitro conceptions. SEARCH STRATEGY: A comprehensive search in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library was undertaken from database inception to February 2021, with backward citation tracking. SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, or case-control studies that assessed stillbirth following in vitro fertilisation and/or intracytoplasmic sperm injection in comparison to non-in vitro methods of conception, including spontaneous conceptions, intrauterine insemination, and ovarian stimulation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess risk of bias. A summary odds ratio (OR) for stillbirth following in vitro methods of conception compared to non-in vitro methods was calculated using a random-effects model for meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-three cohort studies met inclusion criteria. There was an increased risk of stillbirth with in vitro methods: OR 1.41 (95% CI 1.20-1.65); however, the crude baseline risk of stillbirth was low (4.44/1000 total births). Subgroup analysis did not demonstrate an increased risk when in vitro methods were compared to conception without in vitro methods in the context of subfertility. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to non-in vitro conceptions, in vitro conceptions have an increased risk of stillbirth. However, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate whether this risk is associated with in vitro techniques or underlying subfertility. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: This meta-analysis found an increased risk of stillbirth in singletons from in vitro methods of conception.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.040
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.357 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & GynaecologySame topicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin PregnancyFrench-language works237,207