133 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38769878)
1. Analysing adherence to guidelines for time-lapse imaging information on UK fertility clinic websites.
Perrotta M; Zampino L; Geampana A; Bhide P
Hum Fertil (Camb); 2024 Dec; 27(1):2346595. PubMed ID: 38769878
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The prevalence, promotion and pricing of three IVF add-ons on fertility clinic websites.
van de Wiel L; Wilkinson J; Athanasiou P; Harper J
Reprod Biomed Online; 2020 Nov; 41(5):801-806. PubMed ID: 32888824
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. "Add-Ons" for Assisted Reproductive Technology: Do Patients Get Honest Information from Fertility Clinics' Websites?
Galiano V; Orvieto R; Machtinger R; Nahum R; Garzia E; Sulpizio P; Marconi AM; Seidman D
Reprod Sci; 2021 Dec; 28(12):3466-3472. PubMed ID: 33939166
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Reporting assisted reproductive technology success rates on Australian and New Zealand fertility clinic websites.
Goodman LK; Prentice LR; Chanati R; Farquhar C
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol; 2020 Feb; 60(1):135-140. PubMed ID: 32052410
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Claims for fertility interventions: a systematic assessment of statements on UK fertility centre websites.
Spencer EA; Mahtani KR; Goldacre B; Heneghan C
BMJ Open; 2016 Nov; 6(11):e013940. PubMed ID: 27890866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology advertising guidelines: How are member clinics doing?
Sauerbrun-Cutler MT; Brown EC; Huber WJ; Has P; Frishman GN
Fertil Steril; 2021 Jan; 115(1):104-109. PubMed ID: 33069369
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. What is the quality of information on social oocyte cryopreservation provided by websites of Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology member fertility clinics?
Avraham S; Machtinger R; Cahan T; Sokolov A; Racowsky C; Seidman DS
Fertil Steril; 2014 Jan; 101(1):222-6. PubMed ID: 24140039
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Low E-visibility of embryologists on fertility clinic websites: a web-based cross-sectional study.
Choucair F; Atilan O; Almohammadi A; Younis N; Al Hourani A; Curchoe CL; Raad G
J Assist Reprod Genet; 2023 Nov; 40(11):2619-2626. PubMed ID: 37715874
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Infertility information on the World Wide Web: a cross-sectional survey of quality of infertility information on the internet in the UK.
Marriott JV; Stec P; El-Toukhy T; Khalaf Y; Braude P; Coomarasamy A
Hum Reprod; 2008 Jul; 23(7):1520-5. PubMed ID: 18372253
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The quality of information about elective oocyte cryopreservation (EOC) on Australian fertility clinic websites.
Beilby K; Dudink I; Kablar D; Kaynak M; Rodrigo S; Hammarberg K
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol; 2020 Aug; 60(4):605-609. PubMed ID: 32648257
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Assessment of United States fertility clinic websites according to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM)/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) guidelines.
Abusief ME; Hornstein MD; Jain T; ;
Fertil Steril; 2007 Jan; 87(1):88-92. PubMed ID: 17081534
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) test information on Australian and New Zealand fertility clinic websites: a content analysis.
Copp T; Nickel B; Lensen S; Hammarberg K; Lieberman D; Doust J; Mol BW; McCaffery K
BMJ Open; 2021 Jul; 11(7):e046927. PubMed ID: 34233986
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Analysis of fertility clinic marketing of complementary therapy add-ons.
Stein J; Harper JC
Reprod Biomed Soc Online; 2021 Aug; 13():24-36. PubMed ID: 34141907
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The marketing of elective egg freezing: A content, cost and quality analysis of UK fertility clinic websites.
Gürtin ZB; Tiemann E
Reprod Biomed Soc Online; 2021 Mar; 12():56-68. PubMed ID: 33336090
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Accessing publicly funded donor insemination treatment in the UK: is funding information available on fertility clinic websites?
Taylor F; Turner-Moore R; Pacey A; Jones G
Hum Fertil (Camb); 2023 Jul; 26(3):512-518. PubMed ID: 37161825
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Direct-to-consumer advertising of success rates for medically assisted reproduction: a review of national clinic websites.
Wilkinson J; Vail A; Roberts SA
BMJ Open; 2017 Jan; 7(1):e012218. PubMed ID: 28082363
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Disparities between online assisted reproduction patient education for same-sex and heterosexual couples.
Jin H; Dasgupta S
Hum Reprod; 2016 Oct; 31(10):2280-4. PubMed ID: 27530417
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Quality of information provided by Brazilian Fertility Clinic websites: Compliance with Brazilian Medical Council (CFM) and American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) Guidelines.
Carneiro MM; Koga CN; Mussi MCL; Fradico PF; Ferreira MCF
JBRA Assist Reprod; 2023 Jun; 27(2):169-173. PubMed ID: 35916465
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The trouble with IVF and randomised control trials: Professional legitimation narratives on time-lapse imaging and evidence-informed care.
Perrotta M; Geampana A
Soc Sci Med; 2020 Aug; 258():113115. PubMed ID: 32593117
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. TILT: Time-Lapse Imaging Trial-a pragmatic, multi-centre, three-arm randomised controlled trial to assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of time-lapse imaging in in vitro fertilisation treatment.
Bhide P; Srikantharajah A; Lanz D; Dodds J; Collins B; Zamora J; Chan D; Thangaratinam S; Khan KS
Trials; 2020 Jul; 21(1):600. PubMed ID: 32611445
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
