ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2025
Investigating perceptions and usage of fertility supplements: a mixed methods analysis of a large online forum.
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 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
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
purposeThis study aims to characterize assisted reproductive technology patients' online discussions of fertility supplements to better understand how this audience uses supplements, their attitudes toward perceived effects of the supplement, and the topics patients sought advice on regarding supplements.
methodsThis study used mixed methods, sequential exploratory design. We extracted public posts from the Reddit forum, "r/IVF." Posts about fertility supplements were categorized by the described use of supplements and perceived effect of the supplement. Posts in each qualitative category were then quantified, and post author characteristics were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
resultsThree hundred sixty-nine posts were included in the analysis. Two hundred nine posts identified specific supplements, and the most frequently mentioned included ubiquinone, vitamin D, omega-3 fatty acids, dehydroepiandrosterone, and myo-inositol. Two hundred seventy-nine authors reported taking supplements; 9.3% reported a positive perceived effect, 12.9% reported a negative perceived effect, and 21.1% asked for advice regarding their supplements. In the remaining 90 posts, 10% of authors expressed concerns and 90% expressed interest in taking supplements. One hundred ninety-seven posts included the indication for using assisted reproductive technology, the most common being diminished ovarian reserve or male factor infertility.
conclusionMany patients are using supplements with the goal of increasing their chance of assisted reproductive technology success and are seeking guidance on their use online. Some frequently mentioned supplements have limited research and unknown efficacy. The extensive discourse about supplements observed in this study reflects a need for increased guidance and evidence-based medical advice on how patients may use supplements safely and appropriately.
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.