Neonatal outcome following new assisted reproductive technology regulations in Turkey-a nationwide multicenter point prevalence study

Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine

Volumn 28, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 204-209

  Kultursay, Nilgun ^a   Yalaz, Mehmet ^a   Koroglu, Ozge Altun ^a  

^a EGE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Assisted reproductive technology; Legislation; Medically assisted reproduction; Morbidity; Multiple births; Newborn

Indexed keywords

ADULT; APGAR SCORE; ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; CHORIOAMNIONITIS; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; EMBRYO TRANSFER; FEMALE; FETUS OUTCOME; FETUS RISK; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HUMAN; INFANT; INFERTILITY THERAPY; LIVE BIRTH; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICOLEGAL ASPECT; MULTICENTER STUDY; MULTIPLE PREGNANCY; NECROTIZING ENTEROCOLITIS; NEWBORN; NEWBORN ASSESSMENT; NEWBORN INTENSIVE CARE; NEWBORN MORBIDITY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATENT DUCTUS ARTERIOSUS; PREMATURITY; PREVALENCE; RESPIRATORY TRACT DISEASE; RISK ASSESSMENT; TURKEY (REPUBLIC); VAGINAL DELIVERY; VERY LOW BIRTH WEIGHT; BIRTH RATE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PREMATURE BIRTH; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TRENDS; TURKEY;

ADULT; BIRTH RATE; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; FEMALE; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HUMANS; INFANT, NEWBORN; INFANT, PREMATURE; MULTIPLE BIRTH OFFSPRING; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PREGNANCY, MULTIPLE; PREMATURE BIRTH; PREVALENCE; REPRODUCTIVE TECHNIQUES, ASSISTED; TURKEY;

EID: 84920025242     PISSN: 14767058     EISSN: 14764954     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/14767058.2014.908844     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Tiitinen A. Prevention of multiple pregnancies in infertility treatment. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2012;26:829-40.
2. Gurgan T, Demirol A. Why and how should multiple pregnancies be prevented in assisted reproduction treatment programmes? Reprod Biomed Online 2004;9:237-44.
3. Turkish Neonatal Society Assisted Reproductive Techniques and Multiple Births Study Group. Effects of assisted reproduction techniques on neonatal mortality and morbidity. Turkish Pediatr J 2010;23:258-66.
4. Urman B, Yakin K. New Turkish legislation on assisted reproductive techniques and centres: a step in the right direction? Reprod Biomed Online 2010;21:729-31.
5. Kutlu P, Atvar O, Vanlioglu OF, et al. Effect of the new legislation and single-embryo transfer policy in Turkey on assisted reproduction outcomes: preliminary results. Reprod Biomed Online 2011;22:208-14.
6. Guzoglu N, Kanmaz HG, Dilli D, et al. The impact of the new Turkish regulation, imposing single embryo transfer after assisted reproduction technology, on neonatal intensive care unit utilization: a single center experience. Hum Reprod 2012;27:2384-8.
7. Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, de Mouzon J, et al. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART) and the World Health Organization (WHO) revised glossary of ART terminology, 2009. Fertil Steril 2009;92: 1520-4.
8. Urman B, Aydin T, Tas A. Analysis of factors determining the number of embryos to be transferred after ivf treatment in Turkey, TSRM survey. J Turk Soc Obstet Gynecol 2008;5:188-94.
9. Yayla M, Baytur Y. Multicentric multiple pregnancy study I: epidemiology. Perinat J 2008;16:1-8.
10. Sezer SD, Kucuk M, Yuksel H, et al. Perinatal and neonatal outcomes of twin pregnancies in Turkey. Twin Res Hum Genet 2011;14:201-12.
11. de Mouzon J, Goossens V, Bhattacharya S, et al.; European IVFM. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2007: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 2012;27: 954-66.
12. Fauser BC, Devroey P, Macklon NS. Multiple birth resulting from ovarian stimulation for subfertility treatment. Lancet 2005;365: 1807-16.
13. Kalra SK, Barnhart KT. In vitro fertilization and adverse childhood outcomes: what we know, where we are going, and how we will get there. A glimpse into what lies behind and beckons ahead. Fertil Steril 2011;95:1887-9.
14. Pados G, Zafrakas M, Tsolakidis D, et al. Obstetric and neonatal outcome after assisted fertilization and spontaneous conception: a comparative study. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 2012;39:448-51.
15. Gremeau AS, Brugnon F, Bouraoui Z, et al. Outcome and feasibility of elective single embryo transfer (eSET) policy for the first and second IVF/ICSI attempts. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2012;160:45-50.
16. Kresowik JD, Stegmann BJ, Sparks AE, et al. Five-years of a mandatory single-embryo transfer (mSET) policy dramatically reduces twinning rate without lowering pregnancy rates. Fertil Steril 2011;96:1367-9.
17. Wang YA, Sullivan EA, Healy DL, Black DA. Perinatal outcomes after assisted reproductive technology treatment in Australia and New Zealand: single versus double embryo transfer. Med J Aust 2009;190:234-7.
18. Ledger WL. Demographics of infertility. Reprod Biomed Online 2009;18:11-14.
19. De Sutter P, Delbaere I, Gerris J, et al. Birthweight of singletons after assisted reproduction is higher after single-than after double-embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 2006;21:2633-7.
20. Sazonova A, Kallen K, Thurin-Kjellberg A, et al. Obstetric outcome after in vitro fertilization with single or double embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 2011;26:442-50.
21. Statistical Regions for Candidate countries and EFTA (European Free Trade Association) countries, by country. [Internet]. Eurostat's Metadata Server. Avaliable from: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/nomenclatures/index.cfm?TargetUrl=LST-NOM- DTL&StrNom=SR-22&StrLanguageCode=EN&IntPcKey=30630093&StrLayoutCode=HIERARCHIC [last accessed 8 Apr 2014].