Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40932650›Full record

ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2026

Commercial Impacts on Assisted Reproductive Technology: A Scoping Review.

M Wiersma, I Kerridge, S Gallagher, K Hammarberg, R J Norman, L Rombauts, J Savulescu, C Stewart, A Yazdani, W Lipworth

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

M WiersmaThe University of Sydney, School of Public Health, Sydney Health Ethics, Rm 134, Edward Ford Building, Sydney, Australia. miriam.wiersma@sydney.edu.au.
I KerridgeHaematology Department, Royal North Shore Hospital Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2065, Australia.
S GallagherThe University of Sydney, School of Public Health, Sydney Health Ethics, Rm 134, Edward Ford Building, Sydney, Australia.
K HammarbergSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5988-5865
R J NormanAdelaide Medical School, Robinson Research Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3118-3896
L RombautsMonash University, Melbourne, Australia.
J SavulescuCentre for Biomedical Ethics, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0003-1691-6403
C StewartSydney Law School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3625-0899
A YazdaniEve Health Centre for Biomedical Ethics, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
W LipworthDepartment of Philosophy, Philosophy Department, Macquarie UniversityMacquarie University Ethics and Agency Research CentreMacquarie University, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia.

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council APP1181401Wellcome Trust WT203132/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Assisted reproductive technology (ART) is a growing global industry, projected to reach $37.7 billion by 2027. Predominantly offered in private healthcare settings, concerns have been raised about the potential negative impacts of commercialization on ART services. Despite numerous accounts of these impacts, a comprehensive synthesis and critique of arguments are lacking. This scoping review aims to provide a nuanced understanding of commercial impacts on ART by exploring how commercial forces have been identified, studied, and evaluated, and what strategies have been suggested for their management in health-related journals. PubMed, Web of Science, Cinahl, and Scopus were searched between January and July 2023 for articles addressing commercial impacts on ART. Database searches identified 11,873 articles, with 163 articles included in the final review. Commercial impacts on ART were most frequently mentioned in discussions of "add-on" interventions (40/163; 25 per cent of articles). Many articles were critical of commercial impacts on ART; however, several suggested that there may be benefit in the delivery of ART by the private sector. This review offers a number of proposed strategies for the mitigation of potential adverse effects of commerce on ART that may be useful to service providers and policymakers. These include improving patient information, enhancing informed consent processes, and increasing regulatory oversight. The review also alerts us to potential challenges that might arise in the context of regulatory reform and reminds us that enhanced regulation is not universally supported.

Indexed as

CommercePrivate SectorReproductive Techniques, AssistedHumansInformed ConsentAssisted reproductionBioethicsCommercializationGovernance

Identifiers

PMID40932650
PMCPMC13068687

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.