ArticleThe Hastings Center report2023
Hope and Exploitation in Commercial Provision of Assisted Reproductive Technologies.
Article in The Hastings Center report, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dr Reddit? The quality and accuracy of information about IVF add-ons on Reddit.Health promotion international · 2026Article
- Private equity and reproductive medicine: "Fertile breeding ground" - a physician's perspective".Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2025Review
- Hope and Exploitation in Commercial Provision of Assisted Reproductive Technologies.The Hastings Center report · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Innovation is a key driver of care provision in assisted reproductive technologies (ART). ART providers offer a range of add-on interventions, aiming to augment standard in vitro fertilization protocols and improve the chances of a live birth. Particularly in the context of commercial provision, an ever-increasing array of add-ons are marketed to ART patients, even when evidence to support them is equivocal. A defining feature of ART is hope-hope that a cycle will lead to a baby or that another test or intervention will make a difference. Yet such hope also leaves ART patients vulnerable in a variety of ways. This article argues that previous attempts to safeguard ART patients have neglected how the use of add-ons in commercial ART can exploit patients' hopes. Commercial providers of ART should provide add-ons only free of charge, under a suitable research protocol.
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.