Maternal and Child Health Journal

, Volume 10, Issue 5, pp 427–431 | Cite as

Validity of self-reported use of assisted reproductive technology treatment among women participating in the pregnancy risk assessment monitoring system in five states, 2000

  • Laura A. Schieve
  • Deborah Rosenberg
  • Arden Handler
  • Kristin Rankin
  • Meredith A. Reynolds
Original Paper


Objectives: To assess the validity of a question on assisted reproductive technology (ART) incorporated into the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) in 2000. While the intent of the question is to ascertain whether the index infant was conceived using ART, the phrasing was ambiguous for women who had used ART while trying to conceive the index infant but became pregnant after discontinuing treatment. Methods: We compared weighted PRAMS estimates from five states that incorporated the ART question in 2000 with data from the U.S. ART Surveillance System (ART-SS) maintained by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). U.S. medical practices are mandated to report data for every ART procedure to CDC annually; thus, the ART-SS is highly specific and complete. Results: ART use was reported for 156 of the PRAMS births in our study population, representing 4,571 (95% Confidence Limit, 3,452–5,690) births from the total birth cohort in the five states of interest in 2000. For the same maternal residency states and year, 1,768 births were reported to the ART-SS. Thus, we calculate that PRAMS overestimated ART use by 2,803 births. PRAMS estimated 2.59 times as many ART births as reported to the ART-SS. While for singletons, a large excess in estimated births from PRAMS was observed (ratio=3.50), there was little difference between the PRAMS estimates and ART-SS for twin and triplet births. Conclusion: These findings suggest women responding to PRAMS may be reporting past ART use in addition to current. The findings by plurality support this hypothesis.


Assisted reproductive technology Pregnancy Validity Survey 



We thank the five Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) states that contributed data for this analysis. The following PRAMS Coordinators were responsible for coordinating data collection: Alabama—Albert Woolbright, PhD; Illinois—Theresa Sandidge, MA; Maine—Kim Haggan; Nebraska—Jennifer Severe-Oforah; Oklahoma—Dick Lorenz. We also thank Denise D’Angelo from the CDC PRAMS Team, Division of Reproductive Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The data from the assisted reproductive technology (ART) Surveillance System were collected by the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART). The SART system is jointly supported by the CDC, SART, and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM).

The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.


  1. 1.
    Wright VC, Schieve LA, Reynolds MA, Jeng G. Assisted reproductive technology surveillance—United States, 2002. In: Surveillance Summaries; 2005 Jun 3; MMWR 2005;54(No. SS02):1–24.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. 2002 assisted reproductive technology success rates: National summary and fertility clinic reports, Atlanta, GA: CDC, 2004. All annual assisted reproductive technology success rates reports may be accessed at Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kiely JL. What is the population-based risk of preterm birth among twins and other multiples? Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1998;41:3–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Martin JA, Park MM. Trends in twin and triplet births:1980–1997. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 1999;47:1–16.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    MacDorman MF, Martin JA, Mathews TJ, Hoyert DL, Ventura SJ. Explaining the 2001–02 infant mortality increase: data from the linked birth/infant death data set. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2005;53:1–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pharoah PO. Neurological outcome in twins. Semin Neonatol. 2002;7:223–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    ESHRE Capri Workshop Group. Multiple gestation pregnancy. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:1856–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schieve LA, Meikle SF, Ferre C, Peterson HB, Jeng G, Wilcox LS. Low and very low birth weight in infants conceived with use of assisted reproductive technology. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:731–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schieve LA, Ferre C, Peterson HB, Macaluso M, Reynolds MA, Wright VC. Perinatal outcome among singleton infants conceived through assisted reproductive technology in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103:1144–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hansen M, Kurinczuk JJ, Bower C, Webb S. The risk of major birth defects after intracytoplasmic sperm injection and in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:725–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ericson A, Kallen B. Congenital malformations in infants born after IVF: a population-based study. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:504–09.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stromberg B, Dahlquist G, Ericson A, Finnstrom O, Koster M, Stjernqvist K. Neurological sequelae in children born after in-vitro fertilisation: a population-based study. Lancet. 2002;359:461–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schieve LA, Wilcox LS, Zeitz J, Jeng G, Hoffman D, Brzyski R, Toner J, Grainger D, Tatham L, Younger B. Assessment of outcomes for assisted reproductive technology: Overview of issues and the US experience in establishing a surveillance system. In: Vayena E, Rowe PJ, Griffin PD editors. Medical, Ethical and Social Aspects of Assisted Reproduction (2001: Geneva, Switzerland) Current Practices and Controversies in Assisted Reproduction: Report of a WHO Meeting. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Publications; 2002. p. 363–376.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura A. Schieve
    • 1
  • Deborah Rosenberg
    • 2
  • Arden Handler
    • 2
  • Kristin Rankin
    • 2
  • Meredith A. Reynolds
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Reproductive HealthNational Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and PreventionAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.School of Public HealthUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations