ArticleHealth promotion international2026
Dr Reddit? The quality and accuracy of information about IVF add-ons on Reddit.
Article in Health promotion international, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
IVF add-ons are optional tests, treatments or procedures offered in addition to standard IVF, often at additional cost and with uncertain evidence of benefit. In a commercialized fertility sector, patients must make complex reproductive decisions while navigating variable clinical information, online advice and peer-to-peer narratives. This study examined Reddit as a digital health environment shaping access to information and decision-making about IVF add-ons. Posts and comments from the r/IVF subreddit were extracted from 14 October to 13 November 2024, filtered using IVF add-on keywords, and manually reviewed for eligibility. Eligible content included anecdotes, claims about benefit or lack of benefit, and/or recommendations to use or avoid an add-on. Accuracy of claims was independently assessed by two researchers against evidence-based sources, including Cochrane reviews. Of 32 420 posts and comments screened, 1498 were eligible, comprising 2011 relevant statements: anecdotes (n = 1414), claims (n = 250), and recommendations (n = 347). The most frequently mentioned add-ons were preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy, aspirin, antioxidants, acupuncture, and growth hormone. Anecdotes more commonly described success than failure (64% vs 36%). Most claims asserted benefit (161/250, 64%), and most benefit claims were unsupported or contradicted by robust evidence (111/161, 69%). Recommendations overwhelmingly encouraged add-on use (280/347, 81%), despite limited supporting evidence. Online forums can provide valuable peer support, but may also amplify unsubstantiated benefit claims and commercially aligned treatment norms. Accessible, independent, evidence-based digital resources are needed to strengthen reproductive autonomy and informed decision-making in women's reproductive health.
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.