Babies born via IVF are more likely to have a heart defect.

Question

Babies conceived via assisted reproductive technology, such as in vitro fertilization, have a 36% higher risk of developing a major heart defect than children conceived naturally.

Children born after assisted reproductive technology (ARTs), such as in vitro fertilization (IVF), experience a higher prevalence of congenital heart defects (CHDs), according to a study published in the European Heart Journal by researchers from multiple institutions in Sweden. 

Severe CHDs were detected in 594 children born after ART (0.35%) and in 2019, 375 children born after spontaneous conception (SC). (0.26%; AOR 1.30; 95% CI 1.20–1.42).

Answer 1

This claim by the New York Post cites an article by the European Society of Cardiology, which is analyzing a study found in the European Heart Journal. This study was conducted over the span of several decades and involved 7.7 million newborns across 4 Nordic countries. The scale and timeframe of this study indicates that the results are likely credible, especially coming from a peer-reviewed medical journal. Additionally, I further researched this claim and found a different study from the Journal of Clinical Medicine between 2011-2020 researching 1,511 pregnancies in Italian clinics in Milan. This study is more recent and covers a different region, and yields similar results claiming assisted pregnancies have a higher chance of congenital heart defects. Overall they found a higher risk of CHDs in babies from assisted pregnancies (1.92%) compared to 0.76% in live births in the general population (data from the EUROCAT). This leads to me to agree with the original claim made.

doi.org/10.3390%2Fjcm10225363

Comments

Hi, I liked how you cite your sources and describe how the data in them led you to conclude that the statement was reliable. In order to give validity to the comment, you added a lot of facts from the sources which I liked. The only thing I would say is maybe include all the links that all the data in your statement is from?

Answer 2

This article links its information to EurekAlert (https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1059216) which links to a study published in the European Heart Journal. This article can be found on the Oxford Academic website (https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/advancearticle/doi/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae572/7773316?searchresult=1#483088140) which leads me to believe that it is credible. The study was done by looking at "Data from national ART registries, medical birth registries (MBRs), national patient registries (NPRs), cause of death registries, and population registries were cross-linked. Data for this study were obtained from Denmark (1994–2014), Finland (1990–2014), Norway (1984–2015), and Sweden (1987–2015)"(Oxford Academic Website). This seems to be the source of the information from the article and because it was a study done I believe this is true. 

Comments

Hi charlotterush, I like how, as well as linking your sources, you explain how the information in your sources made you believe that the statement was credible. You also included some data from the sources that made the statement credible.

Answer 3

The main claim of this article is that "Babies born after fertility treatment have higher risk of heart defects". The data that is referenced can be found at (https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1059216), which is a nonprofit news service called AAAS, the science society, who operates with the European Heart Journal, which is published weekly by The Oxford University Press, so we know this is a credible source. Here is the link to the study where the data is pulled from (https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/advance-article/doi/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae572/7773316), which confirms and alligns with the data and claims being made in the article. After a quick search of "Kelly Noble" the author of the article, we can see that she has at least one other article posted with the European Heart Journal, which can be found here (https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1030496), so she is likely a credible author considering we already validated the credibility of the organizations who would hire her. The article was also published very recently, on the 27th of September, 2024, so we know the data is not only relevant, but was conduted over a lengthy time period in order to capture more accurate data via a larger scale. 

Comments

Hi, I liked how you provided multiple citations and connected them back to your overall argument. Unfortunately, when I clicked on the links to the articles you had cited, none of them seemed to be working. If you could refind the correct links, it would strengthen your fact-checking.

Answer 4

The main claim of this article is that babies that were conceived with the help of IVF have a higher chance of being diagnosed with a congenial heart defect within the first year of life. The article links their source of the study in the first few sentences [https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1059216], which showed that Eurekalert was a peer review of the original publication found in the European Heart Journal published by Oxford Academic [https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/advance-article/doi/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae572/7773316]. I find that the original news source is valid and legitimate, the study links every author with background information on their education and to other studies they have published and participated in. This study is brand new and was published in September of this year. Another thing that makes this article more credible is the fact that there are many other Medical news outlets that are publishing this study with the same information. The article was very well written in the fact that it was straight to the point and did not use personal opinions. The headline is very clear to understand and the article backs it. 

Answer 5

This article clearly claims in its title that babies born Via IVF are at a higher risk of having a heart Defect. This claim stems from a recent study published by the European Heart Journal. The author of this article on the New York Post, Reda Wigle, lists her title at the company as astrology writer according to her LinkedIn. This makes me question her integrity as author for a medical article. However, while the New York Post and this author may not be the most accredited source, the cited study itself is a peer reviewed journal published by Oxford University Press. Additionally, this study has been cited in a wide range of other medical websites.