ArticleOpen research Europe2025
Analysis of online information about success rates in fertility clinics in Spain. An urgent call for action.
Article in Open research Europe, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The medically assisted reproduction (MAR) industry is a booming sector of the economy, and Spain is proving to be a notable example of this industry's rise. Marketing strategies in the healthcare sector are shaped by the constant tension between providing clear, complete and appropriate information about treatments and providing information to attract and retain customers. Methods: We conducted a systematic analysis of success rate information published on the websites of Spain's five with the strongest online presence MAR clinics as of November 2023. The analysis examined terminology, certifications and audits by external bodies, references to data sources, age-specific success rates, and generalised claims about treatment effectiveness. Results: We identified significant deficiencies and ambiguities in how clinics present success rate data. Common issues included vague definitions, lack of certification details, absence of reliable data sources, and failure to differentiate outcomes by age or treatment type. Several clinics used overly optimistic or potentially misleading statistics, making it difficult for patients to assess their realistic chances of success. We provide recommendations aimed at improving consumer protection and regulating advertising practices. We also emphasise that presenting clear and truthful success rate information is not only a legal requirement but also an ethical duty in reproductive healthcare. Conclusions: Stronger regulation of success rate reporting in Spain's fertility sector is urgently needed. We recommend that external authorities oversee and standardise data reporting to ensure transparency and prevent misleading practices. A centralised public body should be responsible for monitoring, collecting, and managing this data to protect patient rights and improve trust in fertility care.
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.