ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2025
Lost in translation: are doctors really answering patients' questions about in vitro fertilization?
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Role of Emotions in Health Literacy and Patient Education: Trends, Technologies, and Future Opportunities-A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Empowering knowledge dissemination: a 5A model for health professionals in IVF health communication through short videos.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAs social media grows as a health resource, IVF patients turn to Facebook and Reddit for guidance, while providers share educational content on TikTok and Instagram. This study examines the alignment between patient inquiries and provider content to identify gaps in digital fertility education.
methodsA cross-sectional qualitative analysis collected 50 top patient posts from five largest IVF Facebook and Reddit groups and 50 provider videos from Instagram and TikTok using popular IVF hashtags. Posts and videos were categorized into ten themes, engagement metrics analyzed, and provider content assessed for readability. Statistical analyses included chi-square tests for content distribution and independent t-tests and one-way ANOVA for readability differences (p < 0.05 considered significant).
resultsSignificant discrepancies were observed between patient inquiries and provider content. Patients most frequently inquired about medications, diagnostic testing, side effects, and emotional support-topics underrepresented in provider content. Providers disproportionately focused on procedural details (34.09% vs. 6.17%, p < 0.001). Readability analysis showed provider content exceeded the AMA-recommended 6th-grade reading level (range: 7.93-15.29). Despite misalignment, engagement with IVF-related content was high, with millions of views, likes, and comments across platforms.
conclusionsThere is misalignment between what patients ask and what providers discuss on social media. Providers aiming content at patients should address patient priorities both online and in clinical practice while improving readability to enhance digital health literacy. Given the vast reach of social media, fertility specialists should consider establishing a presence to educate and engage with patients effectively.
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.