Judy E Stern1, Milton Kotelchuck2, Barbara Luke3, Eugene Declercq4, Howard Cabral5, Hafsatou Diop6. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire. Electronic address: judy.e.stern@dartmouth.edu. 2. Mass-General Hospital for Children, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. 4. Department of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Department of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Bureau of Family Health and Nutrition, Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare length of gestation after assisted reproductive technology (ART) as calculated by three methods from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System (SART CORS) and vital records (birth and fetal death) in the Massachusetts Pregnancy to Early Life Longitudinal Data System (PELL). DESIGN: Historical cohort study. SETTING: Database linkage analysis. PATIENT(S): Live or stillborn deliveries. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): ART deliveries were linked to live birth or fetal death certificates. Length of gestation in 7,171 deliveries from fresh autologous ART cycles (2004-2008) was calculated and compared with that of SART CORS with the use of methods: M1 = outcome date - cycle start date; M2 = outcome date - transfer date + 17 days; and M3 = outcome date - transfer date + 14 days + day of transfer. Generalized estimating equation models were used to compare methods. RESULT(S): Singleton and multiple deliveries were included. Overall prematurity (delivery <37 weeks) varied by method of calculation: M1 29.1%; M2 25.6%; M3 25.2%; and PELL 27.2%. The SART methods, M1-M3, varied from those of PELL by ≥ 3 days in >45% of deliveries and by more than 1 week in >22% of deliveries. Each method differed from each other. CONCLUSION(S): Estimates of preterm birth in ART vary depending on source of data and method of calculation. Some estimates may overestimate preterm birth rates for ART conceptions.
OBJECTIVE: To compare length of gestation after assisted reproductive technology (ART) as calculated by three methods from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System (SART CORS) and vital records (birth and fetal death) in the Massachusetts Pregnancy to Early Life Longitudinal Data System (PELL). DESIGN: Historical cohort study. SETTING: Database linkage analysis. PATIENT(S): Live or stillborn deliveries. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): ART deliveries were linked to live birth or fetal death certificates. Length of gestation in 7,171 deliveries from fresh autologous ART cycles (2004-2008) was calculated and compared with that of SART CORS with the use of methods: M1 = outcome date - cycle start date; M2 = outcome date - transfer date + 17 days; and M3 = outcome date - transfer date + 14 days + day of transfer. Generalized estimating equation models were used to compare methods. RESULT(S): Singleton and multiple deliveries were included. Overall prematurity (delivery <37 weeks) varied by method of calculation: M1 29.1%; M2 25.6%; M3 25.2%; and PELL 27.2%. The SART methods, M1-M3, varied from those of PELL by ≥ 3 days in >45% of deliveries and by more than 1 week in >22% of deliveries. Each method differed from each other. CONCLUSION(S): Estimates of preterm birth in ART vary depending on source of data and method of calculation. Some estimates may overestimate preterm birth rates for ART conceptions.
Authors: Barbara Luke; Morton B Brown; David A Grainger; Judy E Stern; Nancy Klein; Marcelle I Cedars Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2008-06-18 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Sheree L Boulet; Laura A Schieve; Angela Nannini; Cynthia Ferre; Owen Devine; Bruce Cohen; Zi Zhang; Victoria Wright; Maurizio Macaluso Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2008-05-16 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Joyce A Martin; Brady E Hamilton; Stephanie J Ventura; Michelle J K Osterman; Sharon Kirmeyer; T J Mathews; Elizabeth C Wilson Journal: Natl Vital Stat Rep Date: 2011-11-03
Authors: Zi Zhang; Maurizio Macaluso; Bruce Cohen; Laura Schieve; Angela Nannini; Michael Chen; Victoria Wright Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2009-12-11 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Carmen Messerlian; Paige L Williams; Lidia Mínguez-Alarcón; Courtney C Carignan; Jennifer B Ford; Craig M Butt; John D Meeker; Heather M Stapleton; Irene Souter; Russ Hauser Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Barbara Luke; Judy E Stern; Milton Kotelchuck; Eugene R Declercq; Mark D Hornstein; Daksha Gopal; Lan Hoang; Hafsatou Diop Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2015-05-05 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Barbara Luke; Judy E Stern; Milton Kotelchuck; Eugene R Declercq; Bruce Cohen; Hafsatou Diop Journal: J Reprod Med Date: 2015 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 0.142
Authors: Carmen Messerlian; Blair J Wylie; Lidia Mínguez-Alarcón; Paige L Williams; Jennifer B Ford; Irene C Souter; Antonia M Calafat; Russ Hauser Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 4.822