FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2080267910> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2080267910 endingPage "1842" @default.
• W2080267910 startingPage "1837" @default.
• W2080267910 abstract "No AccessJournal of UrologyTestis, Varicocele and Stones1 May 2015Does Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection Pose an Increased Risk of Genitourinary Congenital Malformations in Offspring Compared to In Vitro Fertilization? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Peter A. Massaro, Dawn Lee MacLellan, Peter A. Anderson, and Rodrigo L.P. Romao Peter A. MassaroPeter A. Massaro More articles by this author , Dawn Lee MacLellanDawn Lee MacLellan More articles by this author , Peter A. AndersonPeter A. Anderson More articles by this author , and Rodrigo L.P. RomaoRodrigo L.P. Romao More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.10.113AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: We systematically reviewed and performed a meta-analysis of the genitourinary congenital malformation rate after conception by intracytoplasmic sperm injection compared to in vitro fertilization. Materials and Methods: We systematically reviewed studies to compare perinatal outcomes between children conceived by intracytoplasmic sperm injection vs in vitro fertilization. Studies showing genitourinary congenital malformation rates were included. We assessed the risk of bias, focusing on the quality of genitourinary congenital malformation reporting and analysis targeted at singletons. Meta-analysis was done using a random effects model for 3 outcomes, including overall genitourinary congenital malformation, hypospadias and cryptorchidism. Sensitivity analysis was also performed in only studies at low risk for bias. Results: The initial search yielded 1,482 articles. We performed a full text review of 111 of these studies, of which 22 met inclusion criteria for systematic review. Meta-analysis of intracytoplasmic sperm injection and in vitro fertilization in 12,270 and 24,240 cases, respectively, revealed that intracytoplasmic sperm injection was associated with a significantly higher rate of overall genitourinary congenital malformation compared to in vitro fertilization (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.02–1.59, p = 0.04). However, when including only 4 studies at low risk for bias with a total of 7,727 and 14,308 intracytoplasmic sperm injection and in vitro fertilization cases, respectively, the difference was not significant (OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.00–1.64, p = 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of hypospadias (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.87–1.69) or cryptorchidism (OR 1.39, 95% CI 0.97–2.00) between males conceived by intracytoplasmic sperm injection vs in vitro fertilization. On all analyses there was no significant statistical heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 0). Conclusions: Intracytoplasmic sperm injection is associated with a slightly higher risk of genitourinary malformation in offspring than in vitro fertilization. However, when only higher quality studies were analyzed, the difference was not significant. The hypospadias and cryptorchidism rates in offspring are similar for the 2 conception methods. References 1 : Congenital anomalies after assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril2013; 99: 327. Google Scholar 2 : Birth defects and assisted reproductive technologies. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med2014; 19: 177. Google Scholar 3 : Neonatal outcome and congenital malformations in children born after ICSI with testicular or epididymal sperm: a controlled national cohort study. Hum Reprod2013; 28: 230. Google Scholar 4 : In vitro fertilization (IVF) in Sweden: risk for congenital malformations after different IVF methods. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol2005; 73: 162. Google Scholar 5 : Reproductive technologies and the risk of birth defects. N Engl J Med2012; 366: 1803. Google Scholar 6 : Congenital malformations in infants born after in vitro fertilization in Sweden. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol2010; 88: 137. Google Scholar 7 : Birth defects in children conceived by in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril2012; 97: 1331. Google Scholar 8 : Birth defects in children conceived by ICSI compared with children conceived by other IVF-methods; a meta-analysis. Int J Epidemiol2005; 34: 696. Google Scholar 9 : Does infertility treatment increase male reproductive tract disorder?. Urology2013; 81: 644. Google Scholar 10 : Congenital malformations in twins: an international study. Am J Med Genet1999; 83: 117. Google Scholar 11 : Detection of chromosomal abnormalities, congenital abnormalities and transfusion syndrome in twins. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol2007; 29: 517. Google Scholar 12 : Evaluation of the quality of prognosis studies in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med2006; 144: 427. Google Scholar 13 : Obstetric outcome of pregnancies after the transfer of cryopreserved and fresh embryos obtained by conventional in-vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod1999; 14: 2619. Google Scholar 14 : A multi-centre cohort study of the physical health of 5-year-old children conceived after intracytoplasmic sperm injection, in vitro fertilization and natural conception. Hum Reprod2005; 20: 413. Google Scholar 15 : Medical and developmental outcome at 1 year for children conceived by intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Lancet1998; 351: 1529. Google Scholar 16 : Obstetric outcomes and congenital abnormalities after in vitro maturation, in vitro fertilization, and intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Obstet Gynecol2007; 110: 885. Google Scholar 17 : Male reproductive tract abnormalities: more common after assisted reproduction?. Early Hum Dev2010; 86: 547. Google Scholar 18 : Comparison of pregnancy outcome after intracytoplasmic sperm injection and in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod1998; 13: 1514. Google Scholar 19 : Increased risk of blastogenesis birth defects, arising in the first 4 weeks of pregnancy, after assisted reproductive technologies. Hum Reprod2010; 25: 59. Google Scholar 20 : Assisted reproductive technology and major birth defects in Western Australia. Obstet Gynecol2012; 120: 852. Google Scholar 21 : Neonatal and obstetric outcome of pregnancies conceived by ICSI or IVF. Reprod Biomed Online2005; 11: 469. Google Scholar 22 : Perinatal outcome, health, growth, and medical care utilization of 5- to 8-year-old intracytoplasmic sperm injection singletons. Fertil Steril2008; 89: 1133. Google Scholar 23 : Congenital anomalies in infants conceived by assisted reproductive techniques. Arch Iran Med2012; 15: 228. Google Scholar 24 : Congenital malformations in children born after assisted fertilization in Norway. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen2003; 123: 2696. Google Scholar 25 : A prospective longitudinal study of the physical, psychomotor, and intellectual development of singleton children up to 5 years who were conceived by intracytoplasmic sperm injection compared with children conceived spontaneously and by in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril2003; 80: 1388. Google Scholar 26 : A retrospective follow-up study on intracytoplasmic sperm injection. J Assist Reprod Genet1999; 16: 227. Google Scholar 27 : Birth defects after assisted reproductive technologies in China: analysis of 15,405 offspring in seven centers (2004 to 2008). Fertil Steril2011; 95: 458. Google Scholar 28 : Analysis of birth defects among children 3 years after conception through assisted reproductive technology in China. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol2013; 97: 744. Google Scholar 29 : Infertility, infertility treatment, and congenital malformations: Danish national birth cohort. BMJ2006; 333: 679. Google Scholar 30 : Assisted reproductive techniques and risk of exstrophy-epispadias complex: a German case-control study. J Urol2013; 189: 1524. Link, Google Scholar © 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byNiederberger C (2018) Re: Effect of the Male Factor on the Clinical Outcome of Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection Combined with Preimplantation Aneuploidy Testing: Observational Longitudinal Cohort Study of 1,219 Consecutive CyclesJournal of Urology, VOL. 200, NO. 4, (683-684), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2018. Volume 193Issue 5SMay 2015Page: 1837-1842Supplementary Materials Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Keywordssperm injectionstestiscryptorchidismhypospadiasintracytoplasmicfertilization in vitroMetricsAuthor Information Peter A. Massaro More articles by this author Dawn Lee MacLellan More articles by this author Peter A. Anderson More articles by this author Rodrigo L.P. Romao More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ..." @default.
• W2080267910 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2080267910 creator A5019816334 @default.
• W2080267910 creator A5021576126 @default.
• W2080267910 creator A5027488915 @default.
• W2080267910 creator A5082223491 @default.
• W2080267910 date "2015-05-01" @default.
• W2080267910 modified "2023-10-09" @default.
• W2080267910 title "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" @default.
• W2080267910 cites W1592805206 @default.
• W2080267910 cites W1600617731 @default.
• W2080267910 cites W1967119909 @default.
• W2080267910 cites W1969861533 @default.
• W2080267910 cites W1979824115 @default.
• W2080267910 cites W1989351282 @default.
• W2080267910 cites W2006887089 @default.
• W2080267910 cites W2022029693 @default.
• W2080267910 cites W2030837258 @default.
• W2080267910 cites W2040890658 @default.
• W2080267910 cites W2051238655 @default.
• W2080267910 cites W2054870887 @default.
• W2080267910 cites W2057205974 @default.
• W2080267910 cites W2058028299 @default.
• W2080267910 cites W2075532505 @default.
• W2080267910 cites W2084749995 @default.
• W2080267910 cites W2098187274 @default.
• W2080267910 cites W2103759659 @default.
• W2080267910 cites W2107315915 @default.
• W2080267910 cites W2120673872 @default.
• W2080267910 cites W2122814783 @default.
• W2080267910 cites W2125709067 @default.
• W2080267910 cites W2126503856 @default.
• W2080267910 cites W2129259025 @default.
• W2080267910 cites W2132718602 @default.
• W2080267910 cites W2143469689 @default.
• W2080267910 cites W2155835604 @default.
• W2080267910 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.10.113" @default.
• W2080267910 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25813561" @default.
• W2080267910 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W2080267910 type Work @default.
• W2080267910 sameAs 2080267910 @default.
• W2080267910 citedByCount "44" @default.
• W2080267910 countsByYear W20802679102015 @default.
• W2080267910 countsByYear W20802679102016 @default.
• W2080267910 countsByYear W20802679102017 @default.
• W2080267910 countsByYear W20802679102018 @default.
• W2080267910 countsByYear W20802679102019 @default.
• W2080267910 countsByYear W20802679102020 @default.
• W2080267910 countsByYear W20802679102021 @default.
• W2080267910 countsByYear W20802679102022 @default.
• W2080267910 countsByYear W20802679102023 @default.
• W2080267910 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2080267910 hasAuthorship W2080267910A5019816334 @default.
• W2080267910 hasAuthorship W2080267910A5021576126 @default.
• W2080267910 hasAuthorship W2080267910A5027488915 @default.
• W2080267910 hasAuthorship W2080267910A5082223491 @default.
• W2080267910 hasConcept C105702510 @default.
• W2080267910 hasConcept C112672928 @default.
• W2080267910 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2080267910 hasConcept C131872663 @default.
• W2080267910 hasConcept C133507102 @default.
• W2080267910 hasConcept C16685009 @default.
• W2080267910 hasConcept C2778278907 @default.
• W2080267910 hasConcept C2779234561 @default.
• W2080267910 hasConcept C2781087480 @default.
• W2080267910 hasConcept C29456083 @default.
• W2080267910 hasConcept C512716672 @default.
• W2080267910 hasConcept C54355233 @default.
• W2080267910 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2080267910 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2080267910 hasConcept C88972607 @default.
• W2080267910 hasConcept C95190672 @default.
• W2080267910 hasConceptScore W2080267910C105702510 @default.
• W2080267910 hasConceptScore W2080267910C112672928 @default.
• W2080267910 hasConceptScore W2080267910C126322002 @default.
• W2080267910 hasConceptScore W2080267910C131872663 @default.
• W2080267910 hasConceptScore W2080267910C133507102 @default.
• W2080267910 hasConceptScore W2080267910C16685009 @default.
• W2080267910 hasConceptScore W2080267910C2778278907 @default.
• W2080267910 hasConceptScore W2080267910C2779234561 @default.
• W2080267910 hasConceptScore W2080267910C2781087480 @default.
• W2080267910 hasConceptScore W2080267910C29456083 @default.
• W2080267910 hasConceptScore W2080267910C512716672 @default.
• W2080267910 hasConceptScore W2080267910C54355233 @default.
• W2080267910 hasConceptScore W2080267910C71924100 @default.
• W2080267910 hasConceptScore W2080267910C86803240 @default.
• W2080267910 hasConceptScore W2080267910C88972607 @default.
• W2080267910 hasConceptScore W2080267910C95190672 @default.
• W2080267910 hasIssue "5S" @default.
• W2080267910 hasLocation W20802679101 @default.
• W2080267910 hasLocation W20802679102 @default.
• W2080267910 hasOpenAccess W2080267910 @default.
• W2080267910 hasPrimaryLocation W20802679101 @default.
• W2080267910 hasRelatedWork W1961801311 @default.
• W2080267910 hasRelatedWork W2039581654 @default.
• W2080267910 hasRelatedWork W2066324816 @default.
• W2080267910 hasRelatedWork W2157787264 @default.
• W2080267910 hasRelatedWork W2380508976 @default.

• next