CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 25Reproductive Health and TechnologiesReproductive Health and ContraceptionOvarian function and disorders

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Restorative reproductive medicine for infertility in two family medicine clinics in New England, an observational study

Open access
Stanford, Joseph B., Carpentier, Paul A., Meier, Barbara L., Rollo, Mark, Tingey, Benjamin·2021·BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
DOI 10.1186/s12884-021-03946-8PMC PMC8265110
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Restorative reproductive medicine (RRM) seeks to identify and correct underlying causes and factors contributing to infertility and reproductive dysfunction. Many components of RRM are highly suitable for primary care practice. We studied the outcomes amongst couples who received restorative reproductive medicine treatment for infertility in a primary care setting. Methods: Two family physicians in Massachusetts trained in a systematic approach to RRM (natural procreative technology, or NaProTechnology) treated couples with infertility. We retrospectively reviewed the characteristics, diagnoses, treatments, and outcomes for all couples treated during the years 1989 to 2014. We compared pregnancy and live birth by clinical characteristics using Kaplan-Meier analysis. We employed the Fleming-Harrington weighted Renyi test or the logrank test to compare the cumulative proportion with pregnancy or with live birth. Results: Among 370 couples beginning treatment for infertility, the mean age was 34.8 years, the mean prior time trying to conceive was 2.7 years, and 27% had a prior live birth. The mean number of diagnoses per couple was 4.9. Treatment components included fertility tracking with the Creighton Model FertilityCare System (80%); medications to enhance cervical mucus production (81%), to stimulate ovulation (62%), or to support the luteal phase (75%); and referral to female laparoscopy by a surgeon specializing in endometriosis (46%). The cumulative live birth rate at 2 years was 29% overall; this was significantly higher for women under age 35 (34%), and for women with body mass index < 25 (40%). There were 2 sets of twins and no higher-order multiple gestations. Of the 63 births with data available, 58 (92%) occurred at term. Conclusions: Family physicians can provide a RRM approach for infertility to identify underlying causes and promote healthy term live births. Younger women and women with body mass index < 25 are more likely to have a live birth.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12884-021-03946-8

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. Thoma ME, McLain AC, Louis JF, King RB, Trumble AC, Sundaram R, et al. Prevalence of infertility in the United States as estimated by the current duration approach and a traditional constructed approach. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(5):1324–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.11.037. · DOI
  2. Louis JF, Thoma ME, Sorensen DN, McLain AC, King RB, Sundaram R, et al. The prevalence of couple infertility in the United States from a male perspective: evidence from a nationally representative sample. Andrology. 2013;1(5):741–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2047-2927.2013.00110.x. · DOI
  3. Marshburn PB. Counseling and diagnostic evaluation for the infertile couple. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am. 2015;42(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ogc.2014.10.001. · DOI
  4. Vannuccini S, Clifton VL, Fraser IS, Taylor HS, Critchley H, Giudice LC, et al. Infertility and reproductive disorders: impact of hormonal and inflammatory mechanisms on pregnancy outcome. Hum Reprod Update. 2016;22(1):104–15. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmv044. · DOI · Paper page
  5. ESHRE Capri Workshop Group. Economic aspects of infertility care: a challenge for researchers and clinicians. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(10):2243–8. · DOI · Paper page
  6. Jensen TK, Jacobsen R, Christensen K, Nielsen NC, Bostofte E. Good semen quality and life expectancy: a cohort study of 43,277 men. Am J Epidemiol. 2009;170(5):559–65. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwp168. · DOI
  7. Boltz MW, Sanders JN, Simonsen SE, Stanford JB. Fertility treatment, use of in vitro fertilization, and time to live birth based on initial provider type. J Am Board Fam Med. 2017;30(2):230–8. https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2017.02.160184. · DOI
  8. Williams RS, Doody KJ, Schattman GL, Adashi EY. Public reporting of assisted reproductive technology outcomes: past, present, and future. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(2):157–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2014.05.010. · DOI
  9. Boyle PC, de Groot T, Andralojc KM, Parnell TA. Healthy singleton pregnancies from restorative reproductive medicine (RRM) after failed IVF. Front Med (Lausanne). 2018;5:210. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2018.00210. · DOI
  10. Boyle P, Stanford J. Natural procreative technology - a multifactorial approach to the chronic problem of infertility. Biomedicina. 2011;21(3):37–42.
  11. Hilgers TW. Trends and deficiencies in infertility evaluation and treatment. In: Hilgers TW, editor. The medical and surgical practice of NaProTechnology. Omaha: Pope Paul VI Institute Press; 2004. p. 477–94.
  12. Hilgers TW. Introduction to the Creighton Model System. In: Hilgers TW, editor. The medical and surgical practice of NaProTechnology. Omaha: Pope Paul VI Institute Press; 2004. p. 43–56.
  13. Hilgers TW. NaPro technology in infertility: evaluation and treatment. In: Hilgers TW, editor. The medical and surgical practice of NaProTechnology. Omaha: Pope Paul VI Institute Press; 2004. p. 509–40.
  14. Hilgers TW. Effectiveness of NaPro technology in the treatment of infertility. In: Hilgers TW, editor. The medical and surgical practice of NaProTechnology. Omaha: Pope Paul VI Institute Press; 2004. p. 677–94.
  15. Stanford JB, Parnell TA, Boyle PC. Outcomes from treatment of infertility with natural procreative technology in an Irish general practice. J Am Board Fam Med. 2008;21(5):375–84. https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2008.05.070239. · DOI
  16. Tham E, Schliep K, Stanford J. Natural procreative technology for infertility and recurrent miscarriage: outcomes in a Canadian family practice. Can Fam Physician. 2012;58(5):e267–74.
  17. American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Diagnostic evaluation of the infertile female: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(6):e44–50. · DOI
  18. Boyle PC. NaPro technology and infertility: a family physician's approach. In: Hilgers TW, editor. The medical and surgical practice of NaProTechnology. Omaha: Pope Paul VI Institute Press; 2004. p. 653–66.
  19. Evers JL. Female subfertility. Lancet. 2002;360(9327):151–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)09417-5. · DOI
  20. Lintsen AM, Eijkemans MJ, Hunault CC, Bouwmans CA, Hakkaart L, Habbema JD, et al. Predicting ongoing pregnancy chances after IVF and ICSI: a national prospective study. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(9):2455–62. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dem183. · DOI
  21. Gnoth C, Godehardt D, Godehardt E, Frank-Herrmann P, Freundl G. Time to pregnancy: results of the German prospective study and impact on the management of infertility. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(9):1959–66. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deg366. · DOI
  22. Frank-Herrmann P, Heil J, Gnoth C, Toledo E, Baur S, Pyper C, et al. The effectiveness of a fertility awareness based method to avoid pregnancy in relation to a couple's sexual behaviour during the fertile time: a prospective longitudinal study. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(5):1310–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dem003. · DOI
  23. Weschler T. Taking Charge of Your Fertility, 10th Anniversary Edition: The Definitive Guide to Natural Birth Control, Pregnancy Achievement, and Reproductive Health vol. 10, 10/31/2006 edn: Collin; 2008.
  24. Lintsen AM, Pasker-de Jong PC, de Boer EJ, Burger CW, Jansen CA, Braat DD, et al. Effects of subfertility cause, smoking and body weight on the success rate of IVF. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(7):1867–75. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deh898. · DOI
  25. Imani B, Eijkemans MJ, te Velde ER, Habbema JD, Fauser BC. Predictors of patients remaining anovulatory during clomiphene citrate induction of ovulation in normogonadotropic oligoamenorrheic infertility. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1998;83(7):2361–5. https://doi.org/10.1210/jcem.83.7.4919. · DOI
  26. Malchau SS, Henningsen AA, Loft A, et al. The long-term prognosis for live birth in couples initiating fertility treatments. Hum Reprod. 2017;32:1439–49. · DOI
  27. van Eekelen R, Scholten I, Tjon-Kon-Fat RI, van der Steeg JW, Steures P, Hompes P, et al. Natural conception: repeated predictions over time. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(2):346–53. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew309. · DOI
  28. Hilgers TW, Prebil AM. The ovulation method--vulvar observations as an index of fertility/infertility. Obstet Gynecol. 1979;53(1):12–22.
  29. Stanford JB, Smith KR, Dunson DB. Vulvar mucus observations and the probability of pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101(6):1285–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0029-7844(03)00358-2. · DOI
  30. Manders M, McLindon L, Schulze B, Beckmann MM, Kremer JA, Farquhar C. Timed intercourse for couples trying to conceive. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;3:Cd011345.
  31. Mu Q, Fehring RJ. Efficacy of achieving pregnancy with fertility-focused intercourse. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs. 2014;39(1):35–40. https://doi.org/10.1097/NMC.0b013e3182a76b88. · DOI
  32. Rajkhowa M, McConnell A, Thomas GE. Reasons for discontinuation of IVF treatment: a questionnaire study. Hum Reprod 2006;21:358–63. · DOI
  33. Malizia BA, Hacker MR, Penzias AS. Cumulative live-birth rates after in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(3):236–43. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0803072. · DOI
  34. Stanford JB, Simonsen SE, Baksh L. Fertility treatments and adverse perinatal outcomes in a population-based sampling of births in Florida, Maryland, and Utah: a cross-sectional study. Brit J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;123(5):718–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13510. · DOI
  35. Stanford JB, Mikolajczyk RT, Lynch CD, Simonsen SE. Cumulative pregnancy probabilities among couples with subfertility: effects of varying treatments. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(7):2175–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.01.080. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Stanford, J. B., Carpentier, P. A., Meier, B. L., Rollo, M., & Tingey, B.
Affiliations
  • University of Utah (US)
  • International Institute for Restorative Reproductive Medicine (GB)
  • Reliant Medical Group (US)
Corresponding author
Stanford, Joseph B.
ORCID
Venue
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2021-07-07
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
495-495
ISSN
1471-2393 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s12884-021-03946-8
PMC
PMC8265110
OpenAlex
W3177849556
Cited by
25
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3
FWCI
2.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • University of Utah School of Medicine
  • St. Augustine Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Ovarian function and disorders
Keywords
infertility, general practice, primary care, live birth rate, pregnancy outcomes, cervical mucus, ovulation induction, luteal phase support, endometriosis, body mass index, maternal age, term birth
MeSH terms
Adult, Birth Rate, Family Practice, Female, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Infertility, Massachusetts, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Pregnancy, Retrospective Studies, Reproductive Medicine, Reproductive Techniques, Assisted, Live Birth

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