ArticleReproductive biomedicine & society online2021
Analysis of fertility clinic marketing of complementary therapy add-ons.
Article in Reproductive biomedicine & society online, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Health promotion in the algorithmic age: recognizing the information environment as a determinant of health.Health promotion international · 2025Article
- Why the hypothesis of embryo selection in IVF/ICSI must finally be reconsidered.Human reproduction open · 2025Article
- Good practice recommendations on add-ons in reproductive medicine†.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- Ethics and IVF add-ons: We need to talk about it.JBRA assisted reproduction · 2022Article
- The Lack of Ireland's Assisted Human Reproduction (AHR) Regulation Viewed under the Lens of the Patient's Experience.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Complementary therapies are often used during in-vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. The aim of this study was to determine how UK fertility clinic websites are advertising complementary therapy add-ons. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's (HFEA) 'Choose a Fertility Clinic' website was used to identify fertility clinics and their websites. Acupuncture, reflexology, nutritional advice and miscellaneous complementary therapies were examined to determine treatment provision and costs. Treatment claims for acupuncture and reflexology were analysed using an inductive coding approach, and categorized depending on whether they pertained to holistic benefits, physiological benefits or improvements to IVF treatment outcome. At least one complementary therapy was advertised by 17 of 66 (26%) websites. Acupuncture was the most commonly advertised complementary therapy (16/66 clinic websites, 24%), followed by nutritionist services (11/66, 17%), reflexology (10/66, 15%) and other miscellaneous complementary therapies (9/66, 14%). Treatment costs were found to range from less than £50 for individual appointments to hundreds of pounds for treatment packages. Treatments were not always offered in-house at the fertility clinic, but rather patients were referred to an affiliated practitioner. Analysing claims relating to the complementary therapies highlighted that there were differences in the extent to which clinics claimed that complementary therapies benefited IVF, and that information occasionally acknowledged scientific research evidence but did not always present resources in an unbiased manner. Fertility clinic websites should provide accurate information for patients for complementary therapy add-ons. HFEA should add acupuncture and reflexology to their traffic-light system with amber and red ratings, respectively.
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.