Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39375871›Full record

SynthesisHuman reproduction update2025

Infertility treatment and offspring blood pressure-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Edwina H Yeung, Ian R Trees, Priscilla K Clayton, Kristen J Polinski, Alicia A Livinski, Diane L Putnick

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Human reproduction update, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Edwina H YeungEpidemiology Branch, Division of Population Health Research, Division of Intramural Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3851-2613
Ian R TreesEpidemiology Branch, Division of Population Health Research, Division of Intramural Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Priscilla K ClaytonEpidemiology Branch, Division of Population Health Research, Division of Intramural Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Kristen J PolinskiEpidemiology Branch, Division of Population Health Research, Division of Intramural Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Alicia A LivinskiNational Institutes of Health Library, Office of Research Services, Office of the Director, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Diane L PutnickEpidemiology Branch, Division of Population Health Research, Division of Intramural Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, MD, USA.

Funding

Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentIntramural Research ProgramNational Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of HealthNIH HHSORS NIH HHS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStudies have inconsistently observed that children conceived by IVF or ICSI have higher blood pressure compared to children not conceived by these ARTs. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: The aim was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of blood pressure measures of offspring conceived by ART and those conceived naturally. Resolving the suspicion of ART as a risk factor of higher blood pressure, and therefore of heart disease, has public health and clinical implications. SEARCH

methodsA biomedical librarian searched the Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science databases. Searches were limited to records published in English since 1978. Grey literature was searched. Inclusion criteria were humans born via infertility treatment (vs no treatment) who underwent a blood pressure assessment. Exclusion criteria were non-human participants, non-quantitative studies, absence of a control group, and specialty populations (e.g. cancer patients only). Two reviewers independently screened each record's title and abstract and full text using Covidence, extracted data using Excel, and assessed bias using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's Quality Assessment Tool for cohort studies. OUTCOMES: Of 5082 records identified, 79 were included in the systematic review and 36 were included in the meta-analysis of systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in ART and non-ART groups. Overall, 34 reports including 40 effect sizes from 25 unique cohorts, compared blood pressure between ART (N = 5229) and non-ART (N = 8509, reference) groups with no covariate adjustment. No standardized mean differences (SMD) in SBP (0.06 per SD of mmHg, 95% CI = -0.05, 0.18) or DBP (0.11, 95% CI = -0.04, 0.25) by treatment were found, but the heterogeneity was considerable (I2=76% for SBP and 87% for DBP). Adjusted analyses were presented in 12 reports, representing 28 effect sizes from 21 unique cohorts (N = 2242 treatment vs N = 37 590 non-treatment). Studies adjusted for varied covariates including maternal (e.g. age, education, body mass index, smoking, pregnancy complications), child (e.g. sex, age, physical activity, BMI, height), and birth characteristics (e.g. birth weight and gestational age). Adjusted results similarly showed no SMD for SBP (-0.03, 95% CI = -0.13, 0.08) or DBP (0.02, 95% CI = -0.12, 0.16), though heterogeneity remained high (I2 = 64% and 86%). Funnel plots indicated a slight publication bias, but the trim and fill approach suggested no missing studies. Removal of five studies which adjusted for birth outcomes (potentially over-adjusting for mediators) made no material difference. Type of treatment (e.g. IVF vs ICSI), period effects by birth year (≤2000 vs >2000), offspring age group (<8, 8-14, 15+), or study location (e.g. Europe) did not modify the results. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: In conclusion, conception by ART was not associated with offspring blood pressure in a meta-analysis, although considerable heterogeneity was observed. Given the increasing number of children born using ART, perpetuating a difference in blood pressure would mean unnecessary risk screening for many children/adults on a population level. At a clinical level, couples considering these reproductive technologies have some reassurance that there is no evidence of strong vascular 'programming' due to the techniques used. REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO No. CRD42022374232.

Indexed as

Blood PressureChildFemaleFertilization in VitroHumansHypertensionInfant, NewbornMalePregnancyReproductive Techniques, Assistedblood pressurecardiovascularICSIIVFoffspring

Identifiers

PMID39375871
PMCPMC11696704

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.