Talk:In vitro fertilisation

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the In vitro fertilisation article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A news item involving In vitro fertilisation was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 4 October 2010.

Wikipedia

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on July 25, 2004, July 25, 2005, July 25, 2006, July 25, 2012, and July 25, 2014.

Medicine: Reproductive Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This 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.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Women's Health Top‑importance

	This 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.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Philosophy: Ethics Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics

Molecular Biology: MCB Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology 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.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about In vitro fertilisation.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

On 29 August 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to IVF. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2019 and 16 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cajjen12. Peer reviewers: Eunacorn.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kmiller22, JVIDUYA, Tranhtruong, Kevindichosen1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 September 2019 and 31 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kgallant.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pklawrence, Kahebert.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rivaslaura.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kinship discussions

Through IVF techniques, some old ideas of certain constellations of being "impossible", need to be considered nowadays. In Charis Thompson's book "Making Parents", she points out "Naturalizing Stratgies", that mothers use to justify kinship relations. In the 5th chapter, she points out, that for example mothers who need to use the services of a surrogate mother base their definition of kinship mostly on the given genetic relationship. On the other hand, other mothers who need to use egg-cells from another woman, still consider the baby being "theirs", basing the kinship on the fact of that they carried and gave birth to the child. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonsaipotathoe (talk • contribs) 15:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Student Edit- CSUEB

Hello Wiki community! I am a student at California State University East Bay, in a post-bacc program bioethics class. I have a few contributions to add to the invitro fertilisation page. Please give your feedback and own edits. I have Modified the ethical decisions in IVF with information and links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cajjen12 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cajjen12. Thanks for the work, but along with some possibly good amendments you have changed all the headings to max caps. According to WP:Style they should be sentence case. I have undone your edit, as the easiest way of restoring the correct style. If you wish to make the substantive changes again, please don't change the case of the headings. And it might be best to do the edits in stages, not all at once, so that others can see what you've done. Best wishes - SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Foundations II: P2 - 5B - Topics and Goals

Possible topics to discuss:

age - maternal age and decreasing change of conception ^[1]
update success, average cost, insurance coverage, age caps, other guidelines in USA
find citation for Israel data - added to Israel section
drugs that are used in vitro fertilization
drug side effects, DDI, monitoring, - or add links to drugs
fertilisation vs fertilization? - added this but it got removed

JVIDUYA (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Frattarelli, John L.; Miller, Kathleen A.; Miller, Bradley T.; Elkind-Hirsch, Karen; Scott, Richard T. (July 2008). "Male age negatively impacts embryo development and reproductive outcome in donor oocyte assisted reproductive technology cycles". Fertility and Sterility. 90 (1): 97–103. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.06.009.

UCSF Peer Review of Team 5b by Team 5a

Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?

The team added some helpful statistics regarding success of IVF in older populations.

Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?
Goals were to address:

age - maternal age and decreasing change of conception - Team 5b added information regarding outcomes of IVF at or over a certain age (more difficult and higher chance of adverse events).
update success, average cost, insurance coverage, age caps, other guidelines in USA
find citation for Israel data - added to Israel section
drugs that are used in vitro fertilization
drug side effects, DDI, monitoring, - or add links to drugs - Did not address drug drug interactions or drug side effects as their original goal stated
fertilisation vs fertilization? -
Team 5b added: Updated the availability of IVF in different countries: age restriction, funding, statistics for USA with citation.

Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify…

Group 5B edited the article with a neutral point of view. The language they used did not contain any positive/negative or biased tones. Christinewmin (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify…

Team 5b added 4 new references to this article. All references seem to be appropriate and support the added content. Mlomanto (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? If not, specify…

Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify…

I searched their edits in Google and did not find any plagiarism. Great! Kshim054 (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New section on Laboratory requirements

Someone has just added a section headed "Laboratory Requirements", consisting of a list of requirements for environmental control etc. It is completely unreferenced, and it is all very general stuff that could apply to almost any biomedical research or clinical facility. It does not apply particularly to IVF. I think it should be deleted. I was going to go ahead and delete it (WP:BOLD), but I thought perhaps I should mention it here first. Anyone agree with me? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and deleted it. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Women" or "people"?

The article is sprinkled with the word "people" instead of "women". Is this really necessary? I don't wish to offend anyone, but it seems unnecessary, and in some places misleading. There is even an instance of "In comparison with people, men showed less deterioration in mental health ..." - which is frankly stupid. Thoughts? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 August 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In vitro fertilisation → IVF – Per WP:ACROTITLE, the abbreviation is the WP:COMMONNAME in this case. The abbreviation is not widely known to mean something else. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - MOS:ACROTITLE goes too far beyond its mandate, as that is a Manual of Style page, not a naming guideline. Most of whats there should instead be moved to Wikipedia:Article titles#Avoid ambiguous abbreviations. While "IVF" is common to this topic, its not exclusive (IVF (disambiguation)), and in principle we should set a very high bar for any TLA to become primary. For reader clarity, search engine blurbs, etc., the expanded term should be the article title. -- Netoholic @ 15:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be mainly basing your argument on the fact that in your view Wikipedia policy itself is incorrectly structured. MOS:ACROTITLE was used sucessfully before in as an argument in moving International Standard Book Number to ISBN, as seen here: Talk:ISBN#Requested_move_16_April_2022. I have taken a look at the subects listed on the disambiguation page, but they seem to be rather obscure compared to in vitro fertilisation. Based on what policy is the argument based that there is a very high bar for a TLA to become primary? PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no indication that the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation (per WP:ACROTITLE)—blindlynx 16:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Blindlynx Googling the literal "In vitro fertilisation" "pregnancy" gives me 566k results, while "IVF" "pregnancy" gives me 17 million results. (I included pregnancy to exclude any other meanings, so the difference could be a bit different, but you get the point). PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Every single hit for '"IVF" "pregnancy"' has 'In vitro fertilisation (IVF)' in its preview. Also raw hit counts aren't reliable WP:HITS—blindlynx 16:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blindlynx WP:HITS is about notability and does not argue against determining the primary name. PhotographyEdits (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't change the fact it's unreliable for determining numbers —blindlynx 17:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blindlynx Then what tool do you suggest? PhotographyEdits (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Google scholar tends to be my go to, but google trends also works but it tends to be a bit more dated. In order to satisfy WP:ACROTITLE in this case you would have to show that 'IFV' without the full phrase—blindlynx 19:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

also, please stop pinging me, i'll keep an eye on this page—blindlynx 19:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. IVF as a primary redirect is fine, but there's no reason to rename the article. 162 etc. (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – A topic has to meet a pretty high bar to warrant being titled by its acronym. Cases like HIV/AIDS, where most people familiar with the topic wouldn't know what the acronym stands for, are one thing. But I don't think that applies here. Graham (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Britannica. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment test-tube baby ? -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 08:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki Education assignment: LGBTQ Reproductive Health

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2022 and 21 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AuroraRynda (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by AuroraRynda (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"People with uteri" and "gestational bodies"

These two terms have just been inserted wholesale into the article in place of "women", on the grounds of inclusivity. I contend that they are not inclusive terms, just gobbledegook. They are obscure. They do not clarify the meaning but conceal it. I have reinstated "woman" and "women". Before my edit is reversed, could we please discuss? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree. By and large, those participating in IVF are women, as opposed to transmen. I'm in support of the coverage in the article about the use of IVF by trans and GNC individuals, but the language used in the lead needs to make the core principles of IVF clear and use clear terms. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article facts inaccurate.. please fix.

Main article is inaccurate. Needs fixing. To much propaganda not enough facts.

can somebody please change the article to reflect the scientific consensus, facts & evidence.

Edwards did not invent ivf, it was an Australia who invented & developed In Vetro fertilisation. It was Australian Professor Alan Trounson & Australian scientists at the CSIRO.

Commencing in the late 1960s, NHMRC-funded researchers at Monash University and other research centres in Melbourne began creating in vitro fertilisation (IVF) technologies and developed them into robust medical procedures that are now used worldwide.

Australian Professor Alan Trounson & Australian scientists at the CSIRO.

Although Edwards and Steptoe achieved the first IVF pregnancy and birth in 1978, the majority of pioneering developments in IVF during the eighties came from Australia.

They included the world's first donor egg pregnancy, the first frozen embryo pregnancy and the first IVF multiple pregnancies.

Australia also produced the first national guidelines for IVF practices, the first statute legislation protecting donor gamete pregnancies, and Victoria proclaimed the first statute legislation regarding control of IVF procedures.

The reporting of the outcome of all IVF pregnancies began in 1980 as another world initiative.

https://amp.abc.net.au/article/11964830

I would edit page myself but I don’t wanna make an error an mess up the main page. Cheers for the help. 49.178.92.215 (talk) 07:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the things that you are mentioning here are too deep into the detail for this page... but some of them might fit in on the History of in vitro fertilisation page, if properly sourced. You will also find that Professor Trounson is named there more than once.. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Trounson developer of ivf

Can somebody please add the following link’s to articles. thanks I don’t wanna mess up the code as I can’t do it myself. ( to old ) cheers.

Alan Trounson named one of most influential scientists in ever.

https://www.cirm.ca.gov/about-cirm/newsroom/press-releases/03142013-stem-cell-agency-president-named-one-most-influential/

Alan Trounson 49.178.92.215 (talk) 07:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a sufficient source for this information. A press release of an organization announcing an honor for their president is not what we consider a third-party source. It falls in the WP:SPS bucket, reliable only for non-boastful statements. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Frattarelli, John L.; Miller, Kathleen A.; Miller, Bradley T.; Elkind-Hirsch, Karen; Scott, Richard T. (July 2008). "Male age negatively impacts embryo development and reproductive outcome in donor oocyte assisted reproductive technology cycles". Fertility and Sterility. 90 (1): 97–103. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.06.009.

[1]