ArticleJBRA assisted reproduction2022
Ethics and IVF add-ons: We need to talk about it.
Article in JBRA assisted reproduction, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Women's Perspectives on Adjunct Therapies in IVF: Key Considerations and Influences.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2026Article
- Commercial Impacts on Assisted Reproductive Technology: A Scoping Review.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
- Private equity and reproductive medicine: "Fertile breeding ground" - a physician's perspective".Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2025Review
- Policy solutions to improve access to fertility treatment and optimise patient care: consensus from an expert forum.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2025Review
- The inconvenient reality of AI-assisted embryo selection in IVF.Nature medicine · 2024Article
- Endometrial scratching and intralipid treatment-no general recommendations.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2024Article
- [Some present and future ethical dilemmas surrounding advancements in in vitro fertilization.]Salud colectiva · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In vitro fertilization (IVF) 'add-ons' are adjunct treatments used in addition to standard IVF protocols, in an attempt to improve success rates. However, the benefits for add-ons are often not supported by high-quality evidence. Nevertheless, many infertile patients are willing to try anything that might help them to improve their chances of having a baby. Therefore, the use of add-ons has been widespread and has led to extensive debate and discussion. The goal of this manuscript was to discuss the ethics underling the use of adjunct therapies in clinical practice before their safety has been thoroughly ascertained. IVF patients are routinely offered and charged for a wide range of adjunct treatments that they are told may improve their chance of a live birth, despite there being no clinical evidence supporting such efficacy. Add-on treatments are well accepted by most infertile patients, especially those who have already started their IVF treatments. A particular concern is that many clinics around the world are advertising and offering clinical adjuncts to infertile couples undergoing IVF, however, information on add-ons is often inaccurate. Data concerning the lack of scientific evidence supporting add-on efficacy and whether an add-on may cause unanticipated harm or worsen treatment outcomes is not available on most websites. IVF patients are a vulnerable population, thus there is a need for transparency about interventions for IVF, including uncertainties and risks, to support patient decision-making regarding the use of certain adjunctive therapies. Such information can be provided by clear guidelines and effective regulation.
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.