ArticleNursing & health sciences2025
Complementary Interventions Using Technology for Individuals With Infertility Using Assisted Reproductive Technology: A Scoping Review.
Article in Nursing & health sciences, 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.
- Association of estradiol and progesterone levels on human chorionic gonadotropin day with pregnancy outcomes in IVF/ICSI fresh embryo transfer.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Complementary Interventions Using Technology for Individuals With Infertility Using Assisted Reproductive Technology: A Scoping Review.Nursing & health sciences · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
The global rise in infertility highlights the need for personalized informational and psychological support. Digital health technology offers a promising avenue; however, knowledge gaps remain regarding optimal delivery methods, outcomes, and limitations. This scoping review synthesizes recent evidence on complementary interventions using technology for individuals with infertility undergoing reproductive technology-assisted interventions and evaluates their effectiveness and limitations. Seven databases were systematically searched to identify studies published in English or Korean between 2000 and December 2023. The risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist, and data were synthesized using a standardized template. Of 1353 screened studies, 16 were selected, featuring interventions such as web-based programs, mobile applications, and online meetings. Positive outcomes were observed in knowledge, stress reduction, self-efficacy, coping, and dietary behaviors. However, mixed results were found for fertility-related stress, depression, and anxiety, with no significant improvements in fertility-related quality of life, health behaviors, and pregnancy rates. While digital interventions show promise, further research is needed to validate their effectiveness through large-scale randomized controlled trials and to develop standardized assessment tools for better implementation and evaluation.
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.