![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
walkitouthttp://www.themedguru.com/articles/art_may_increase_birth_defects_study-86120355.html
Looks like the most recent study separated out the multiples issue, comparing singletons conceived via ART to singletons conceived the old-fashioned way.
Good quote here:
[Start quote]“Today, more than 1 percent of infants are conceived through ART i.e. i.e. a term referring to methods used to achieve pregnancy by artificial or partially artificial means and this number may continue to increase,” says Jennita Reefhuis, Ph.D., epidemiologist at CDC?s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities. “While the risk is low, it is still important for parents who are considering using ART to think about all of the potential risks and benefits of this technology.”[End quote]
Nicely captured. I now want to see the trend line on percentage of births in the US conceived through ART.
ETA: Holy moly. This article is bad:
http://scienceline.org/2009/02/09/health-pittman-ivf-birth-defects-fertility/
But check this statistic out:
[Start quote] All ART procedures are rare, accounting for only about three percent of infertility services[End quote]
What fraction of the people trying to get pregnant in any given year are resorting to infertility treatment to accomplish that goal? I thought I knew a bunch simply because I'm old enough to have a lot of friends dealing with age-related fertility problems. Now I'm starting to wonder.
ETABBBB: A lot of these articles are downplaying the issue by saying the absolute risk is still low. (Why don't they say that when they're trying to medicate 8 year olds for high cholesterol? No, really. Why?) They often follow up by saying something like, Most IVF kids are normal. Well, you could have a 49% risk of birth defects and that statement would still be true. Not very comforting at 49%. One wonders where between no elevated risk and 49% of kids have a problem is the line.
Looks like the most recent study separated out the multiples issue, comparing singletons conceived via ART to singletons conceived the old-fashioned way.
Good quote here:
[Start quote]“Today, more than 1 percent of infants are conceived through ART i.e. i.e. a term referring to methods used to achieve pregnancy by artificial or partially artificial means and this number may continue to increase,” says Jennita Reefhuis, Ph.D., epidemiologist at CDC?s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities. “While the risk is low, it is still important for parents who are considering using ART to think about all of the potential risks and benefits of this technology.”[End quote]
Nicely captured. I now want to see the trend line on percentage of births in the US conceived through ART.
ETA: Holy moly. This article is bad:
http://scienceline.org/2009/02/09/health-pittman-ivf-birth-defects-fertility/
But check this statistic out:
[Start quote] All ART procedures are rare, accounting for only about three percent of infertility services[End quote]
What fraction of the people trying to get pregnant in any given year are resorting to infertility treatment to accomplish that goal? I thought I knew a bunch simply because I'm old enough to have a lot of friends dealing with age-related fertility problems. Now I'm starting to wonder.
ETABBBB: A lot of these articles are downplaying the issue by saying the absolute risk is still low. (Why don't they say that when they're trying to medicate 8 year olds for high cholesterol? No, really. Why?) They often follow up by saying something like, Most IVF kids are normal. Well, you could have a 49% risk of birth defects and that statement would still be true. Not very comforting at 49%. One wonders where between no elevated risk and 49% of kids have a problem is the line.