IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/1996866851-854_7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What proportion of multiple births are due to ovulation induction? A register-based study in Italy

Author

Listed:
  • Corchia, C.
  • Mastroiacovo, P.
  • Lanni, R.
  • Mannazzu, R.
  • Currò, V.
  • Fabris, C.

Abstract

Objectives. This study evaluated the increase in risk of multiple births associated with ovulation induction and calculated the proportion of multiple births attributable to this treatment. Methods. Cases were 350 multiple births and controls were 737 single births enrolled from April 1993 to March 1994 in the Mercurio Project, an investigation of reproductive outcomes in Italy. Results. Ovulation induction was used in 45 case births (12.9%) and 24 control births (3.3%); the adjusted odds ratio was 4.1 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.4, 6.9). The odds ratio for triplet or higher order births was 72.2 (95% CI = 25.7, 202.8). When unlike-sexed multiple births were considered, the odds ratio increased for twin births, but not for triplet or higher births. The highest odds ratios were found when ovulation induction was used with assisted reproduction. The proportion of multiple births attributable to ovulation induction was 9.7% overall, 5.4% for twin births, and 69.8% for triplet or higher births. Conclusions. Ovulation induction increases the risk of multiple births and has been responsible for the rise in the rate of triplet or higher order births in Italy in the last decade. Its indiscriminate and improper use should be avoided.

Suggested Citation

  • Corchia, C. & Mastroiacovo, P. & Lanni, R. & Mannazzu, R. & Currò, V. & Fabris, C., 1996. "What proportion of multiple births are due to ovulation induction? A register-based study in Italy," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 86(6), pages 851-854.
    • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1996:86:6:851-854_7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1996:86:6:851-854_7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.