» Articles » PMID: 28082363

Direct-to-consumer Advertising of Success Rates for Medically Assisted Reproduction: a Review of National Clinic Websites

Overview
Journal BMJ Open
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2017 Jan 14
PMID 28082363
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: To establish how medically assisted reproduction (MAR) clinics report success rates on their websites.

Setting: Websites of private and NHS clinics offering in vitro fertilisation (IVF) in the UK.

Participants: We identified clinics offering IVF using the Choose a Fertility Clinic facility on the website of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). Of 81 clinics identified, a website could not be found for 2, leaving 79 for inclusion in the analysis.

Primary And Secondary Outcome Measures: Outcome measures reported by clinic websites. The numerator and denominator included in the outcome measure were of interest.

Results: 53 (67%) websites reported their performance using 51 different outcome measures. It was most common to report pregnancy (83% of these clinics) or live birth rates (51%). 31 different ways of reporting pregnancy and 9 different ways of reporting live birth were identified. 11 (21%) reported multiple birth or pregnancy rates. 1 clinic provided information on adverse events. It was usual for clinics to present results without relevant contextual information such as sample size, reporting period, the characteristics of patients and particular details of treatments.

Conclusions: Many combinations of numerator and denominator are available for the purpose of reporting success rates for MAR. The range of reporting options available to clinics is further increased by the possibility of presenting results for subgroups of patients and for different time periods. Given the status of these websites as advertisements to patients, the risk of selective reporting is considerable. Binding guidance is required to ensure consistent, informative reporting.

Citing Articles

Delphi consensus on add-ons and social midia in Assisted Reproductive Technology.

Ceschin A, Petracco A, Borges Jr E, Cordts E, Nakagawa H, Souza M JBRA Assist Reprod. 2023; .

PMID: 37850861 PMC: 10718546. DOI: 10.5935/1518-0557.20230047.


Elective oocyte cryopreservation for age-related fertility decline.

Chronopoulou E, Raperport C, Sfakianakis A, Srivastava G, Homburg R J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021; 38(5):1177-1186.

PMID: 33608838 PMC: 7894970. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-021-02072-w.


Multivariate prediction of mixed, multilevel, sequential outcomes arising from in vitro fertilisation.

Wilkinson J, Vail A, Roberts S Diagn Progn Res. 2021; 5(1):2.

PMID: 33472692 PMC: 7818923. DOI: 10.1186/s41512-020-00091-2.


20 years of the European IVF-monitoring Consortium registry: what have we learned? A comparison with registries from two other regions.

De Geyter C, Wyns C, Calhaz-Jorge C, de Mouzon J, Ferraretti A, Kupka M Hum Reprod. 2020; 35(12):2832-2849.

PMID: 33188410 PMC: 7744162. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deaa250.


The prevalence, promotion and pricing of three IVF add-ons on fertility clinic websites.

van de Wiel L, Wilkinson J, Athanasiou P, Harper J Reprod Biomed Online. 2020; 41(5):801-806.

PMID: 32888824 PMC: 7645731. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.07.021.


References
1.
Griesinger G, Dafopoulos K, Schultze-Mosgau A, Felberbaum R, Diedrich K . What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction? Is BESST (birth emphasizing a successful singleton at term) truly the best?. Hum Reprod. 2004; 19(6):1239-41. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deh237. View

2.
Meldrum D . Pregnancies and deliveries per fresh cycle are no longer adequate indicators of in vitro fertilization program quality: how should registries adapt?. Fertil Steril. 2013; 100(3):620-1. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.07.1969. View

3.
Heijnen E, Macklon N, Fauser B . What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction? The next step to improving outcomes of IVF: consider the whole treatment. Hum Reprod. 2004; 19(9):1936-8. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deh368. View

4.
Luke B, Brown M, Wantman E, Lederman A, Gibbons W, Schattman G . Cumulative birth rates with linked assisted reproductive technology cycles. N Engl J Med. 2012; 366(26):2483-91. PMC: 3623697. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1110238. View

5.
Stern J, Brown M, Luke B, Wantman E, Lederman A, Missmer S . Calculating cumulative live-birth rates from linked cycles of assisted reproductive technology (ART): data from the Massachusetts SART CORS. Fertil Steril. 2009; 94(4):1334-1340. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.05.052. View