Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22734170›Full record

ArticleCanadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien2012

Natural procreative technology for infertility and recurrent miscarriage: outcomes in a Canadian family practice.

Elizabeth Tham, Karen Schliep, Joseph Stanford

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Translation and Cultural Adaptation of the Creighton Model FertilityCare™ System Follow-up Form to Brazilian Portuguese.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. NFP and NaProTechnology.The Linacre quarterly · 2013
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Elizabeth ThamDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Karen Schliep
Joseph Stanford
University of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo study the outcomes of women with infertility or miscarriage treated with natural procreative technology (NaProTechnology or NPT), a systematic medical approach to promoting conception in vivo; and to compare the outcomes with those previously published from a general practice in Ireland.

designRetrospective cohort study.

settingAn urban Canadian primary care practice in which the physician had a part-time practice in NPT.

participantsCouples with infertility or recurrent miscarriage who received treatment in the practice between August 2000 and July 2006.

interventionAll couples were taught to identify the fertile time of their menstrual cycles using the Creighton Model FertilityCare System (CrMS) and completed a standard NPT evaluation. Many also received additional medical treatment to enhance conception in vivo.

main outcome measuresLive birth was the primary outcome; secondary outcomes included conceptions, multiple births, low birth weight, and prematurity.

resultsA total of 108 couples received NPT and were included in the analysis, of which 19 (18%) reported having 2 or more previously unexplained miscarriages. The average female age was 35.4 years. Couples had been attempting to conceive for a mean of 3.2 years. Twentytwo participants (20%) had previously given birth; 24 (22%) had previous intrauterine insemination; and 9 (8%) had previous assisted reproductive technology. The cumulative adjusted proportion of first live births for those completing up to 24 months of NPT treatment was 66 per 100 couples, and the crude proportion was 38%. The cumulative adjusted proportion of first conceptions was 73 per 100 couples, and the crude proportion was 47%. Of the 51 couples who conceived, 12 couples (24%) conceived with CrMS instruction alone, 35 (69%) conceived with CrMS and NPT medical treatment, and 4 (8%) conceived after additional surgical treatment. All births were singleton births; 54% were born at 37 weeks' gestation or later; and 78% had birth weights of 2500 g or greater.

conclusionNatural procreative technology in a family physician's office was effective in treating infertility and miscarriage with outcomes that were comparable to those in an NPT general practice in Ireland. Larger multicentre prospective studies to compare NPT directly to other forms of infertility treatment are warranted.

Indexed as

Abortion, HabitualAdultBirth RateCanadaFamily PracticeFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIncidenceInfant, NewbornInfertility, FemalePhysicians, FamilyPregnancyReproductive Techniques, AssistedRetrospective StudiesTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID22734170
PMCPMC3352813
OpenAlexW2134815623

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.