Talk:Assisted reproductive technology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Medicine / Reproductive medicine (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force.
WikiProject Women's Health (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Math Error in Text[edit]

"Another way to look at costs is to determine the cost of establishing a pregnancy. Thus if a clomiphene treatment has a chance to establish a pregnancy in 8% of cycles and costs $500, it will cost ~ $6,000 to establish a pregnancy, compared to an IVF cycle (cycle fecundity 40%) with a corresponding cost of ($12,000/40%) $90,000"

The math $12,000/40% does not equal $90,000 it equals $30,000.


Disease Transmission[edit]

Maybe we should add a section dealing with the issues of disease transmission through ART. ART is currently the preferred method for reproduction for those with certain communicable diseases.

Other way of organizing[edit]

Does anybody have a better idea how to organize the manual techniques than by dependence of IVF or not? Mikael Häggström 18:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No need to, by the way. It's good as it is. Mikael Häggström 17:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


Nothing on the legal aspects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism and Error in opening paragraph[edit]

There is what looks like a chunk of the original paragraph missing. Please track it down and repair, for I don't really trust myself in fixing it i might break the article even more -- (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Got it. Melchoir (talk) 09:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

New Zealand[edit]

Wouldn't this whole section be better off in the IVF article? K. the Surveyor (talk) 04:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Risk of genetic disorder overstated and not supported by references[edit]

In the Jan 2014 version of this article, the risk of genetic disorders is dramatically overstated and not supported by the given reference Zhang et al. 2008.

This study is a proteomic comparison of 12 IVF, 12 ICSI, and 12 control placenta samples by 2-DE. HNRNPC is elevated in both IVF and ICSI samples. The authors speculate without evidence given in their article that this may be due to increased DNA damage. DNA damage itself may result in genetic disorders but does not usually do so. Most instances of DNA damage are corrected without such problems, when you take a UV bath at the beach for example.

We need a reference for the claim of genetic disorder risk or that point should be deleted.

low birth weight, membrane damage also not well supported[edit]

  • The claim of low birth weight is not well referenced. Zhang et al. '08 do not include data regarding this point, they merely cite relevant papers themselves. A better reference is needed.
  • Increased membrane damage is not supported by Zhang'08. They are speculations found in the paper which only observes increased protein levels but does not measure membrane damage directly.


Tony1, regarding this edit you made, I'd changed that part of the line to "are" in 2013 per the WP:Refers essay. Yes, WP:Refers is not a policy or a guideline, but a growing number of editors are following it. That stated, I understand what you mean about not using "are" for the line in question. Flyer22 (talk) 03:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

No link to this essay, and it is as you say, just an opinion piece with no force. Either way, you can't have a clash of singular and plural. Either "Assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) are methods ..." or "Assisted reproductive technology (ART) is a suite of methods ...", or some such. Tony (talk) 03:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Tony1 (last time pinging you to this talk page via WP:Echo because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies), what do you mean by "No link to this essay"? I don't think that there is anything wrong with linking to an essay to defend an edit; it is commonly done regarding some essays, such as WP:BRD. Obviously, I'm not stating that WP:Refers has "force"; I'm stating that it has validity, and that a growing number of editors are deferring to it because of that validity. Bhny, as you can see from Bhny's contributions, is one of the main editors (or rather the main editor) who defers to the WP:Refers essay (it's been like that since I pointed Bhny to that essay). I already stated that I know what you mean by my having used "are" for the line in question. I am fine with your non-"refers to" suggestions for the line. Flyer22 (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, saw the link in the thread title only later. I don't buy that point as a catch-all, although I see that "refers to" and "describes" are often inappropriate. If that weighs so heavily on editors' minds, then let's examine a much more prominent grammatical problem in the opening sentence:

Assisted reproductive technology (ART) is the use of procedures such as fertility medication, artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization and surrogacy to achieve pregnancy.

Well, no, the technology is not "the use of". The technology exists whether it's used or not. Tony (talk) 04:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

By "use," you're referring to Bhny's changes to the line. I think that you and Bhny can work something out on that. I tweaked the lead following Bhny's changes, as seen here, here, here and here, but not the "use" part. Flyer22 (talk) 04:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Bhny changed the lead again, as seen here; are you okay with that, Tony1? Flyer22 (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Much better! Tony (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Artificial Insemination is not an Assisted Reproductive Technology[edit]

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—which is required as a result of the 1992 Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act to publish the annual ART success rates at U.S. fertility clinics—defines ART to include "all fertility treatments in which both eggs and sperm are handled. In general, ART procedures involve surgically removing eggs from a woman's ovaries, combining them with sperm in the laboratory, and returning them to the woman's body or donating them to another woman." According to CDC, "they do not include treatments in which only sperm are handled (i.e., intrauterine—or artificial—insemination) or procedures in which a woman takes medicine only to stimulate egg production without the intention of having eggs retrieved." The American Society for Reproductive medicine defines Assisted Reproductive Tehcnology as "Assisted reproductive technologies (ART). All treatments which include the handling of eggs and/or embryos. Some examples of ART are in vitro fertilization (IVF), gamete intrafallopian transfer (GIFT), pronuclear stage tubal transfer (PROST), tubal embryo transfer (TET), and zygote intrafallopian transfer (ZIFT)."— Preceding unsigned comment added by AngeliaPitman (talkcontribs) 17:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks. i have added sourced content that this is the case in the US, EU, and at the WHO. OK to remove that stuff. Please use edit notes in the future. Jytdog (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)