ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
Information and misinformation on assisted human reproduction techniques in Europe: a normative analysis of the information provided on the websites of medically assisted reproduction clinics.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Placental Histopathology and Adverse Perinatal Outcomes in ART Pregnancies: A Comparative Analysis of Homologous and Heterologous Techniques.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAs part of the European Be better informed about Fertility project (B2-InF), we carried out a normative analysis of the information provided online by assisted reproduction clinics to the European public. This analysis aimed to determine the degree to which this information complies with regulations of medically assisted reproduction (MAR) and commercial information, and the main ethical implications related to the duty of information.
methodsInformation was gathered from the websites of 33 clinics across 8 European countries (Albania, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Kosovo, Northern Macedonia, Slovenia, Switzerland). Nearly 2000 pages of information were reviewed and checked for compliance with relevant frameworks of national and international law.
resultsThe assessment revealed significant inconsistencies in how clinics present information online, with particular concerns regarding transparency about success rates, associated risks, add-on techniques and the legal and ethical issues that may arise during the use of these techniques.
conclusionsThe results of our analysis indicate an urgent need for enhanced regulatory oversight and standardized information requirements for assisted reproduction clinics across Europe. These findings suggest the necessity for harmonized legal frameworks that mandate comprehensive disclosure standards and establish effective enforcement mechanisms to ensure transparent and accurate information provision to potential patients.
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.