Cited by 17Reproductive Health and TechnologiesHealth Sciences Research and EducationClinical practice guidelines implementation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Context-based infertility care

Open access
Macklon, N.S., Fauser, B.C.J.M.·2020·Reproductive BioMedicine Online

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.rbmo.2019.12.001

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Complex and expensive ART protocols are less applicable in low-resource settings because the context is significantly different.

    “Complex and expensive ART protocols are less applicable in low-resource settings because the context is significantly different (Macklon and Fauser, 2020).”

    From Declining global fertility rates and the implications for family planning and family building: an IFFS consensus document based on a narrative review of the literature (2024) · cites this paper as Macklon and Fauser, 2020

    The Personal Circumstances section says treatment costs can affect access and whether a course of treatment is appropriate; the introduction says infertility care must account for the context in which a patient is treated. The paper does not specifically discuss complex ART protocols in low-resource settings, so that application is more specific than the evidence in our copy. Page numbers were not provided. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 26 · Cited by 17

Metadata

Authors
Macklon, N. S., & Fauser, B. C. J. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Southampton (GB)
  • University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
Corresponding author
  • Macklon, N.S.
  • Fauser, B.C.J.M.
Venue
Reproductive BioMedicine Online
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-01
Volume
40
Issue
1
Pages
2-5
ISSN
1472-6483 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2993572370
Cited by
17
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2
FWCI
1.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Reproductive BioMedicine Online (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
infertility treatment, evidence-based medicine, clinical practice, randomized controlled trials
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Infertility, Male, Evidence-Based Medicine, Precision Medicine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review