Direct-to-consumer advertising of success rates for medically assisted reproduction: A review of national clinic websites

BMJ Open

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2017, Pages

  Wilkinson, Jack ^a,b   Vail, Andy ^a,b   Roberts, Stephen A ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b SALFORD ROYAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^c MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHEMICAL BINDING; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIRECT-TO-CONSUMER ADVERTIZING; EMBRYOLOGY; FEMALE; FERTILITY; HOSPITAL; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; IN VITRO FERTILIZATION; LIVE BIRTH; PREGNANCY RATE; SAMPLE SIZE; ADULT; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; EPIDEMIOLOGY; INFERTILITY THERAPY; INTERNET; MULTIPLE PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TRENDS; UNITED KINGDOM; UTILIZATION;

ADULT; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DIRECT-TO-CONSUMER ADVERTISING; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERNET; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PREGNANCY RATE; PREGNANCY, MULTIPLE; REPRODUCTIVE TECHNIQUES, ASSISTED; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 85009471358     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012218     Document Type: Review

References (44)

1. Haagen EC, Tuil W, Hendriks J, et al. Current Internet use and preferences of IVF and ICSI patients. Hum Reprod 2003;18: 2073-8.
2. Rawal N, Haddad N. Use of Internet in infertility patients. Internet J Gynecol Obstet 2006;5. http://ispub.com/IJGO/5/2/9922
3. Talarczyk J, Hauke J, Poniewaz M, et al. Internet as a source of information about infertility among infertile patients. Ginekol Pol 2012;83: 250-4.
4. Heijnen E, Macklon NS, Fauser B. What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction? The next step to improving outcomes of IVF: Consider the whole treatment. Hum Reprod 2004;19: 1936-8.
5. Abdalla HI, Bhattacharya S, Khalaf Y. Is meaningful reporting of national IVF outcome data possible? Hum Reprod 2010;25: 9-13.
6. Garrido N, Bellver J, Remohi J, et al. Cumulative live-birth rates per total number of embryos needed to reach newborn in consecutive in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles: A new approach to measuring the likelihood of IVF success. Fertil Steril 2011;96: 40-6.
7. Germond M, Urner F, Chanson A, et al. What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction? The cumulated singleton/twin delivery rates per oocyte pick-up: The CUSIDERA and CUTWIDERA. Hum Reprod 2004;19: 2442-4.
8. Griesinger G, Dafopoulos K, Schultze-Mosgau A, et al. What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction? Is BESST (birth emphasizing a successful singleton at term) truly the best? Hum Reprod 2004;19: 1239-41.
9. Meldrum DR. Pregnancies and deliveries per fresh cycle are no longer adequate indicators of in vitro fertilization program quality: How should registries adapt? Fertil Steril 2013;100: 620.
10. Min JK, Breheny SA, MacLachlan V, et al. What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction? The singleton, term gestation, live birth rate per cycle initiated: The BESST endpoint for assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod 2004;19: 3-7.
11. Pinborg A, Loft A, Ziebe S, et al. What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction? Is there a single 'parameter of excellence'? Hum Reprod 2004;19: 1052-4.
12. Schieve LA, Reynolds MA. What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction? Challenges in measuring and reporting success rates for assisted reproductive technology treatments: What is optimal? Hum Reprod 2004;19: 778-82.
13. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Information for Quality Consultation. 2014. http://www.hfea.gov.uk/9164.html (accessed Dec 2014).
14. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Choose a Fertility Clinic. 2009. http://www.hfea.gov.uk/choosing-clinic.html (accessed Dec 2014).
15. Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, de Mouzon J, et al. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART) and the World Health Organization (WHO) revised glossary of ART terminology, 2009. Fertil Steril 2009;92: 1520-4.
16. Chetkowski RJ. Consumer-friendly reporting of in vitro fertilization outcomes. Fertil Steril 2014;101: E7.
17. Marshall EC, Sanderson C, Spiegelhalter DJ, et al. Reliability of league tables of in vitro fertilisation clinics: Retrospective analysis of live birth rates Commentary: How robust are rankings? The implications of confidence intervals. BMJ 1998;316: 1701-5.
18. Bramwell R, West H, Salmon P. Health professionals' and service users' interpretation of screening test results: Experimental study. BMJ 2006;333: 284.
19. Malizia BA, Hacker MR, Penzias AS. Cumulative live-birth rates after in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med 2009;360: 236-43.
20. Moragianni VA, Penzias AS. Cumulative live-birth rates after assisted reproductive technology. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2010;22: 189-92.
21. Tiitinen A, Hydén-Granskog C, Gissler M. What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction? The value of cryopreservation on cumulative pregnancy rates per single oocyte retrieval should not be forgotten. Hum Reprod 2004;19: 2439-41.
22. Stewart LM, Holman CAJ, Hart R, et al. How effective is in vitro fertilization, and how can it be improved? Fertil Steril 2011;95: 1677-83.
23. Gnoth C, Maxrath B, Skonieczny T, et al. Final ART success rates: A 10 years survey. Hum Reprod 2011;26: 2239-46.
24. Luke B, Brown MB, Wantman E, et al. Cumulative birth rates with linked assisted reproductive technology cycles. N Engl J Med 2012;366: 2483-91.
25. Olivius K, Friden B, Lundin K, et al. Cumulative probability of live birth after three in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. Fertil Steril 2002;77: 505-10.
26. Pelinck M, Vogel N, Arts E, et al. Cumulative pregnancy rates after a maximum of nine cycles of modified natural cycle IVF and analysis of patient drop-out: A cohort study. Hum Reprod 2007;22: 2463-70.
27. Soullier N, Bouyer J, Pouly J-L, et al. Estimating the success of an in vitro fertilization programme using multiple imputation. Hum Reprod 2008;23: 187-92.
28. Stern JE, Brown MB, Luke B, et al. Calculating cumulative live-birth rates from linked cycles of assisted reproductive technology (ART): Data from the Massachusetts SART CORS. Fertil Steril 2010;94: 1334-40.
29. Sundström P, Saldeen P. Cumulative delivery rate in an in vitro fertilization program with a single embryo transfer policy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2009;88: 700-6.
30. Witsenburg C, Dieben S, Van der Westerlaken L, et al. Cumulative live birth rates in cohorts of patients treated with in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril 2005;84: 99-107.
31. Maheshwari A, McLernon D, Bhattacharya S. Cumulative live birth rate: Time for a consensus? Hum Reprod 2015;30: 2703-7.
32. Johnson A, El-Toukhy T, Sunkara S, et al. Short communication: Validity of the in vitro fertilisation league tables: Influence of patients' characteristics. BJOG 2007;114: 1569-74.
33. Bird SM, David C, Farewell VT, et al. Performance indicators: Good, bad, and ugly. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc 2005;168: 1-27.
34. Sharif K, Afnan M. The IVF league tables: Time for a reality check. Hum Reprod 2003;18: 483-5.
35. Donohue JM, Cevasco M, Rosenthal MB. A decade of direct-To-consumer advertising of prescription drugs. N Engl J Med 2007;357: 673-81.
36. Iizuka T. What explains the use of direct-To-consumer advertising of prescription drugs? J Ind Econ 2004;52: 349-79.
37. Ventola CL. Direct-To-consumer pharmaceutical advertising: Therapeutic or toxic? P T 2011;36: 669-84.
38. Abusief ME, Hornstein MD, Jain T. Assessment of United States fertility clinic websites according to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM)/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) guidelines. Fertil Steril 2007;87: 88-92.
39. Huang JY, Discepola F, Al-Fozan H, et al. Quality of fertility clinic websites. Fertil Steril 2005;83: 538-44.
40. Jain T, Barbieri RL. Website quality assessment: Mistaking apples for oranges. Fertil Steril 2005;83: 545-7.
41. Epstein YM, Rosenberg HS. Assessing infertility information on the Internet: Challenges and possible solutions. Fertil Steril 2005;83: 553-5.
42. Marriott JV, Stec P, El-Toukhy T, et al. Infertility information on the World Wide Web: A cross-sectional survey of quality of infertility information on the internet in the UK. Hum Reprod 2008;23: 1520-5.
43. Light A, Munro C, Breakey W, et al. The Internet: What are our patients exposed to when considering breast reconstruction following mastectomy? Breast 2014;23: 799-806.
44. Beutel BG, Cardone DA. Kinesiology taping and the world wide web: A quality and content analysis of internet-based information. Int J Sports Phys Ther 2014;9: 665.