Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26479570›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics2015

How Agencies Market Egg Donation on the Internet: A Qualitative Study.

Jason Keehn, Eve Howell, Mark V Sauer, Robert Klitzman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Reproductive Donors' Needs and Preferences: A Mixed-methods Systematic Review.International journal of community based nursing and midwifery · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Egg donation advertisements: addressing the regulatory gap.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Oocyte Biobanks: Old Assumptions and New Challenges.Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)) · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

4 authors.

Jason KeehnReceived his M.S. in Bioethics at Columbia University and is the founder and CEO of ACCOMPANY, a company selling indigenous crafts from the developing world.
Eve HowellReceived her B.A. from Yale University, and is currently a third-year medical student at Thomas Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia.
Mark V SauerProfessor and Vice Chairman, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology at the College of Physicians & Surgeons, Columbia University, and Division Chief of Reproductive Endocrinology at New York Presbyterian-Columbia University Medical Center. He has a special interest in medical bioethics and serves on the Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the Ethics Committee of the New York Presbyterian Columbia University Medical Center, and the editorial board of the American Journal of Bioethics.
Robert KlitzmanProfessor of Psychiatry and Director of the Masters of Bioethics Program at Columbia University.

Funding

CTSA INFRASTRUCTURE FOR PEDIATRIC RESEARCHUL1RR024156 · NCRR · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI GINSBERG, HENRY N · 2006 to 2011
$53.0M
CTSA: K12 COMPONENTKL2RR024157 · NCRR · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI GINSBERG, HENRY N · 2006 to 2011
$8.9M
Center for Research on the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications of Psychiatric, Neurologic and Behavioral GeneticsP50HG007257 · NHGRI · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI APPELBAUM, PAUL STUART · 2013 to 2017
$5.4M
Center for ELSI Research on Psychiatric Neurologic and Behavioral GeneticsP20HG005535 · NHGRI · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI APPELBAUM, PAUL STUART · 2010 to 2012
$731k
NCRR NIH HHS KL2 RR024157NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024156NHGRI NIH HHS HG005535NHGRI NIH HHS P20 HG005535NHGRI NIH HHS P50 HG007257
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We systematically examined the content of the websites of 46 agencies that buy and sell human eggs to understand how they market themselves to both donors and recipients. We found that these websites use marketing techniques that obscure the realities of egg donation, presenting egg donation as a mutually beneficial and fulfilling experience. Sites emphasize egg donors' emotional fulfillment (71.4%) and address recipients' anxieties by stressing the ability to find the perfect "fit" or "match" (56.5%), suiting recipients'"preferences"/"desires" (19.6%), and even designing/customizing a child (15.2%). Agencies attempt to create a sense of connection between the recipients and donors by reporting donors' personal characteristics - e.g., interests/hobbies (63%), traits (34.8%), mood/temperament (20%), and self-reported childhood behavior/memories (15%). Sites present donors as caring/generous (54.3%) and smart/successful/beautiful. These data, the first to examine several key aspects of egg donation agency websites, reveal critical aspects of how these companies communicate to prospective donors and recipients, raising several ethical concerns. Websites frame information in ways that may bias consumers, making emotional appeals that may distract from appropriate risk/benefit assessments and obscure the ethical challenges of egg donation. These data highlight needs for improved practices, adherence to guidelines, and consideration of enhanced guidelines or policy.

Indexed as

FemaleHumansInternetMarketingOocyte Donation

Identifiers

PMID26479570
PMCPMC4663984

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.