Trial reportSocial science & medicine (1982)2020
The trouble with IVF and randomised control trials: Professional legitimation narratives on time-lapse imaging and evidence-informed care.
Trial report in Social science & medicine (1982), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Endometrial scratch to increase live birth rates in women undergoing first-time in vitro fertilisation: RCT and systematic review.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2022Pooled it
- Trial
- Commercial Impacts on Assisted Reproductive Technology: A Scoping Review.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of time-lapse monitoring with or without the use of embryo selection software compared to routine incubation and selection.Human reproduction open · 2026Article
- Legitimacy as Social Infrastructure: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis of the Literature on Legitimacy in Health and Technology.JMIR human factors · 2025Review
- Using interview excerpts to facilitate focus group discussion.Qualitative research : QR · 2025Article
- Accounting for complexity in healthcare innovation debates: Professional views on the use of new IVF treatments.Health (London, England : 1997) · 2023Article
- Patient and professional perspectives about using in vitro fertilisation add-ons in the UK and Australia: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2023Article
- "It all depends on why it's red": qualitative interviews exploring patient and professional views of a traffic light system for IVF add-ons.Reproduction & fertility · 2023Article
- Patient informed choice in the age of evidence-based medicine: IVF patients' approaches to biomedical evidence and fertility treatment add-ons.Sociology of health & illness · 2023Article
- Predicting Success in the Embryology Lab: The Use of Algorithmic Technologies in Knowledge Production.Science, technology & human values · 2023Article
- The crafting of hope: Contextualising add-ons in the treatment trajectories of IVF patients.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Focusing on the case of time-lapse imaging (TLI), this paper analyses how medical professionals negotiate the use of new 'add-on' fertility treatments in light of the limited evidence available. The data produced by TLI technologies is meant to help professionals identify the best embryo to be implanted. Embryo selection is essential in IVF practice for increasing pregnancy rates and reducing the negative effects of repeated failures. More than 5 years after the introduction of TLI in IVF labs, however, there has been no conclusive randomised control trial (RCT) evidence to show that the tools do indeed have a significant impact on pregnancy rates. Nonetheless, many public clinics in the UK have adopted such technologies. Consequently, our research asks: How is the use of TLI tools legitimised by professionals, in light of contradictory evidence? Focusing on 25 semi-structured staff interviews, we argue that professionals use several strategies to legitimise the use of TLI in the clinic without, however, challenging the tenets of evidence-based medicine (EBM) and the value it places on RCTs. Rather, professionals emphasise various advantages that TLI offers, including its use as a lab tool, its potential for knowledge production in embryology, and the role it plays in the management of patient expectations and course of treatment. This paper contributes to debates on the role of EBM in modern medicine and fertility care specifically - an area where this inter-relationship has been underexplored. We conclude by suggesting avenues towards a more nuanced understanding of EBM as it relates to IVF treatment and a rapidly changing biotechnology context.
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.