Cargando…

Quality of information provided by Brazilian Fertility Clinic websites: Compliance with Brazilian Medical Council (CFM) and American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) Guidelines

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the websites of Brazilian fertility clinics included in the 11th Report of the National Embryo Production System (SisEmbrio, 2017) for compliance with the 2004 American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) and the Brazilian Medical Council (Conselho Federal de Medicina, CF...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Carneiro, Márcia Mendonça, Koga, Caio Nobuyoshi, Mussi, Marcela Chagas Lima, Fradico, Pollyanna Faria, Ferreira, Márcia Cristina França
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Brazilian Society of Assisted Reproduction 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10279427/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35916465
http://dx.doi.org/10.5935/1518-0557.20220026
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the websites of Brazilian fertility clinics included in the 11th Report of the National Embryo Production System (SisEmbrio, 2017) for compliance with the 2004 American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) and the Brazilian Medical Council (Conselho Federal de Medicina, CFM) guidelines for advertising. METHODS: We performed an online evaluation of the websites of clinics listed in the 11th SisEmbrio report based on criteria from the 2004 ASRM guidelines (publication of success rates, live birth rates (LBR), method of LBR calculation, success rates by age range and diagnosis, experimental/investigational nature of procedures and the practice of comparison marketing) and CFM guidelines (clinic director name and register visible on the website; no prices displayed, no photos of patients nor success stories with patient identification). RESULTS: A total of 161 SiSEmbrio-registered clinics were evaluated: 153 (95.0%) had functional websites, and only seven were public clinics. Social media presence was as follows: 87 (54.03%) were on WhatsApp; 128 (79.5%) were on Facebook; and 122 (75.8%) were on Instagram. Seventy-five (46.6%) were on other social media platforms (YouTube, LinkedIn, and Twitter). Regarding CFM recommendations, 49 (30.4%) showed information of a registered director, 85 (52.8%) showed patient photos on their websites and/or social media accounts. Fifty-four clinics published success rates (33.5%) and 19 (11.8%) used their own data, whereas seven (4.3%) showed pregnancy rates by age. None reported LBR or advertised prices. CONCLUSIONS: The information published online by Brazilian fertility clinics is heterogeneous in nature. A significant portion of the websites does not follow some of the ASRM and CFM guidelines for advertising.