ArticleReproductive biomedicine & society online2019
It takes a community to conceive: an analysis of the scope, nature and accuracy of online sources of health information for couples trying to conceive.
Article in Reproductive biomedicine & society online, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impacts of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights Misinformation in Digital Spaces on Human Rights Protection and Promotion: Scoping Review.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Article
- Evaluating the quality of online fertility nutrition claims.Public health nutrition · 2025Article
- A Long-Term Evaluation of Facebook for Recruitment and Retention in the ENDIA Type 1 Diabetes Pregnancy-Birth Cohort Study.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2023Article
- Navigating the Credibility of Web-Based Information During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Using Mnemonics to Empower the Public to Spot Red Flags in Health Information on the Internet.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Smartphone application improves fertility treatment-related literacy in a large-scale virtual randomized controlled trial in Japan.NPJ digital medicine · 2021Article
- Early effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on fertility preferences in the United States: an exploratory study.Fertility and sterility · 2021Article
- Accuracy of health-related information regarding COVID-19 on Twitter during a global pandemic.World medical & health policy · 2021Article
- Is Reproductive Orientation Associated with Sexual Satisfaction Among Partnered U.S. Women?Archives of sexual behavior · 2021Article
- Fertility education: what's trending on Instagram.Fertility research and practice · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study examined the nature and accuracy of information available across online platforms for couples trying to conceive. A consumer simulation-based investigation of English websites and social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram) was undertaken using common search terms identified in a pilot study. Claims about fertility and pregnancy health were then extracted from the results and analysed thematically. The accuracy of each claim was assessed independently by six fertility and conception experts, rated on a scale of 1 (not factual) to 4 (highly factual), with scores collated to produce a median rating. Claims with a median score < 3 were classified as inaccurate. The use of the terms 'trying to conceive' and '#TTC' were common identifiers on online platforms. Claims were extracted predominantly from websites (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.