Literature DB >> 24140039

What is the quality of information on social oocyte cryopreservation provided by websites of Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology member fertility clinics?

Sarit Avraham1, Ronit Machtinger1, Tal Cahan1, Amit Sokolov2, Catherine Racowsky3, Daniel S Seidman4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate adequacy and adherence to American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) guidelines of internet information provided by Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART)-affiliated clinics regarding social oocyte cryopreservation (SOC).
DESIGN: Systematic evaluation of websites of all SART member fertility clinics.
SETTING: The internet. PATIENT(S): None. INTERVENTION(S): All websites offering SOC services were scored using a 0-13 scale, based on 10 questions designed to assess website quality and adherence to the ASRM/SART guidelines. The websites were analyzed independently by two authors. Whenever disagreement occurred, a third investigator determined the score. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Scores defined website quality as excellent, ≥9; moderate, 5-8; or poor, ≤4 points. RESULT(S): Of the 387 clinics registered as SART members, 200 offered oocyte cryopreservation services for either medical or social reasons; 147 of these advertised SOC. The average website scores of those clinics offering SOC was 3.4 ± 2.1 (range, 2-11) points. There was no significant difference in scores between private versus academic clinics or clinics performing more or less than 500 cycles per year. CONCLUSION(S): The majority of the websites do not follow the SART/ASRM guidelines for SOC, indicating that there is a need to improve the type and quality of information provided on SOC by SART member websites.
Copyright © 2014 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Nonmedical oocyte cryopreservation; internet; websites

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24140039     DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.09.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fertil Steril        ISSN: 0015-0282            Impact factor:   7.329


  6 in total

1.  Does company-sponsored egg freezing promote or confine women's reproductive autonomy?

Authors:  Heidi Mertes
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2015-05-24       Impact factor: 3.412

2.  Oocyte cryopreservation beyond cancer: tools for ethical reflection.

Authors:  Alma Linkeviciute; Fedro A Peccatori; Virginia Sanchini; Giovanni Boniolo
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2015-07-03       Impact factor: 3.412

3.  Scoliosis related information on the internet in China: can patients benefit from this information?

Authors:  Hongda Bao; Feng Zhu; Fei Wang; Zhen Liu; Mike H Bao; Shouyu He; Zezhang Zhu; Yong Qiu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-02-17       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 4.  Oocyte and ovarian tissue cryopreservation in European countries: statutory background, practice, storage and use.

Authors:  F Shenfield; J de Mouzon; G Scaravelli; M Kupka; A P Ferraretti; F J Prados; V Goossens
Journal:  Hum Reprod Open       Date:  2017-03-29

5.  Cracked open: exploring attitudes on access to egg freezing.

Authors:  Molly Johnston; Giuliana Fuscaldo; Nadine Maree Richings; StellaMay Gwini; Sally Catt
Journal:  Sex Reprod Health Matters       Date:  2020-12

6.  Fertility preservation in female patients with hematological disorders.

Authors:  Dan Wu; Huan Shen
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2022-01-22       Impact factor: 3.007

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.