Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29911189›Full record

ArticleReproductive biomedicine & society online2015

Is mandating elective single embryo transfer ethically justifiable in young women?

Kelton Tremellen, Dominic Wilkinson, Julian Savulescu

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Reproductive biomedicine & society online, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Kelton TremellenDepartment of Obstetrics Gynaecology and Reproductive Medicine, Flinders University, Sturt Road, Bedford Park, South Australia 5042, Australia.
Dominic WilkinsonOxford Uehiro Centre for Practice Ethics, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Julian SavulescuOxford Uehiro Centre for Practice Ethics, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
University of Oxford · GBFlinders University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Compared with natural conception, IVF is an effective form of fertility treatment associated with higher rates of obstetric complications and poorer neonatal outcomes. While some increased risk is intrinsic to the infertile population requiring treatment, the practice of multiple embryo transfer contributes to these complications and outcomes, especially concerning its role in higher order pregnancies. As a result, several jurisdictions (e.g. Sweden, Belgium, Turkey, and Quebec) have legally mandated elective single-embryo transfer (eSET) for young women. We accept that in very high-risk scenarios (e.g. past history of preterm delivery and poor maternal health), double-embryo transfer (DET) should be prohibited due to unacceptably high risks. However, we argue that mandating eSET for all young women can be considered an unacceptable breach of patient autonomy, especially since DET offers certain women financial and social advantages. We also show that mandated eSET is inconsistent with other practices (e.g. ovulation induction and intrauterine insemination-ovulation induction) that can expose women and their offspring to risks associated with multiple pregnancies. While defending the option of DET for certain women, some recommendations are offered regarding IVF practice (e.g. preimplantation genetic screening and better support of IVF and maternity leave) to incentivise patients to choose eSET.

Indexed as

ethicsIVFmandatorymultiple pregnanciessingle-embryo transfertwins

Identifiers

PMID29911189
PMCPMC6001354
OpenAlexW2277916671

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.