↓ Skip to main content

Birth defects after assisted reproductive technology according to the method of treatment in Japan: nationwide data between 2004 and 2012

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Birth defects after assisted reproductive technology according to the method of treatment in Japan: nationwide data between 2004 and 2012
Published in
Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine, August 2015
DOI 10.1007/s12199-015-0486-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Syuichi Ooki

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to analyze birth defects (congenital anomalies) after assisted reproductive technology (ART) according to the method of treatment, namely in vitro fertilization (IVF), intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET). Individual lists of all ART pregnancies resulting in birth defects from birth year 2004 to 2012 presented in the annual reports by the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology were used as the initial sources of information. Relative risks (RRs) with the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated with IVF as the reference group when calculating RR of ICSI for IVF, and with FET as the reference group when calculating the RR of fresh embryo transfer for FET. In total, 2725 stillbirths or live births with birth defects were analyzed. The prevalence of birth defects was slightly yet significantly higher in ICSI compared with IVF throughout the study period (RR = 1.15, 95 % CI 1.02-1.29) and in the 2004-2006 period (RR = 1.26, 95 % CI 1.00-1.58). The prevalence of birth defects was significantly higher for fresh embryo transfer compared with FET in the 2004-2006 period (RR = 1.39, 95 % CI 1.12-1.72). The prevalence of birth defects in multiple births was significantly lower in fresh embryo transfer compared with FET (RR = 0.70, 95 % CI 0.55-0.90, live births of 2007-2012). The present descriptive epidemiological study suggests that the impacts of different ART methods on birth defects might differ.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 4%
Unknown 22 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 26%
Researcher 4 17%
Student > Bachelor 3 13%
Other 2 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 9%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 4 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 13%
Unspecified 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 7 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 September 2015.
All research outputs
#18,425,370
of 22,826,360 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine
#363
of 484 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,070
of 266,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,826,360 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 484 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.6. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,223 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.