Sermondade, N., Benaloun, E., Berthaut, I., Moreau, E., Prades, M., Béranger, A., Chabbert-Buffet, N., Johnson, N., Lévy, R., & Dupont, C. (2021). Reproductive functions and fertility preservation in transgender women: A French case series. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 43(2), 339–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2021.04.016
Stolk, T. H. R., Asseler, J. D., Huirne, J. A. F., van den Boogaard, E., & van Mello, N. M. (2023). Desire for children and fertility preservation in transgender and gender-diverse people: A systematic review. Best Practice & Research. Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 87, 102312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2023.102312
Stoop, D., Ermini, B., Polyzos, N. P., Haentjens, P., De Vos, M., Verheyen, G., & Devroey, P. (2012). Reproductive potential of a metaphase II oocyte retrieved after ovarian stimulation: An analysis of 23 354 ICSI cycles. Human Reproduction, 27(7), 2030–2035. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/des131
van Amesfoort, J. E., van Rooij, F. B., Painter, R. C., Valkenburg-van den Berg, A. W., Kreukels, B. P. C., Steensma, T. D., Huirne, J. A. F., de Groot, C. J. M., & Van Mello, N. M. (2023). The barriers and needs of transgender men in pregnancy and childbirth: A qualitative interview study. Midwifery, 120, 103620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2023.103620
van der Loos, M. A. T. C., Hannema, S. E., Klink, D. T., den Heijer, M., & Wiepjes, C. M. (2022). Continuation of gender-affirming hormones in transgender people starting puberty suppression in adolescence: A cohort study in the Netherlands. The Lancet. Child & Adolescent Health, 6(12), 869–875. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(22)00254-1
ASRM is a multidisciplinary organization dedicated to the advancement of the science and practice of reproductive medicine. The Society accomplishes its mission through the pursuit of excellence in education and research and through advocacy on behalf of patients, physicians, and affiliated health care providers.
It is hard to imagine the field of reproductive medicine without the guidance, leadership, and educational opportunities provided by ASRM. At a time when reproductive rights and the practice of reproductive medicine are being challenged in a number of unprecedented ways, the importance of ASRM has never been more clear.
Despite its wide usage and broad support, the practice of reproductive medicine is often misunderstood by politicians and the public. You can help change that by registering to attend RESOLVE’s Federal Advocacy Day in partnership with ASRM.
ReproductiveFacts.org provides a wide range of information related to reproductive health and infertility, including information on various methods of contraception and their effectiveness; resources for individuals and couples struggling with infertility; information on reproductive health issues, such as endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), and menopause; research updates; and news articles related to reproductive medicine and science.
ASRM’s Office of Public Affairs (OPA) works tirelessly to increase public awareness of and for reproductive medicine. They lead ASRM’s advocacy efforts on behalf of ASRM members and their patients and represent their interests before Federal and State legislatures.
We use cookies to give you the best digital experiences while visiting our websites. By accepting the use of cookies and using our website you consent to our cookies in accordance to our privacy policy. ASRM Members: We use Cookies as part of our digital membership experience. By clicking "Decline Cookies", you will encounter problems accessing member-only content.
Put essential information at your fingertips - before you prescribe. This updated 11th edition lists more than 1,200 commonly prescribed drugs taken during pregnancy and lactation, with detailed monographs that provide the information you need on known or possible effects on the mother, embryo, fetus, and nursing infant.
In the first issue of this anniversary volume, we published an historical overview of the first 24 years of Human Fertility (Pacey & Leese, Citation2022). In this issue (issue 2), with the help of Mark Hamilton (former Chair of the British Fertility Society (BFS), and current Chair of the BFS Board of Trustees) we turn our attention to the many Policy Statements, Guidelines, and Policy and Practice papers that have been published over the last 24 years by the various societies associated with the journal. This provides a rich insight into the history of reproductive medicine in the UK and allows us to pay tribute to the authors involved.
To collect these data, we first examined the titles, authors, and abstracts of all the papers published in the twenty-four years since Human Fertility was launched in 1998. We examined the way each of the papers was classified in the Table of Contents for each issue and, where possible, we also consulted the minutes of the BFS Executive Committee, the Editorial Board of the journal, and any other related correspondence. This led to the identification of 49 unique articles which we considered to have been published on behalf of one or more of the societies associated with the journal. These articles are summarised in Table 1.
Given that the BFS owns the copyright of the journal, it is not surprising that most of the papers had been published with the BFS as the major contributor. However, over the 24 years it is noticeable that article style and presentation has changed considerably. For example, in the early years (1998–2003) most of the papers were published directly by, or on behalf of, the BFS only. Some were published in the names of the primary authors (e.g. Balen and Hayden, Citation1998) whereas for others the author was the BFS itself (e.g. British Fertility Society, Citation1999). For some papers, it was clear from the title that the paper had the approval of the BFS (e.g. ‘BFS recommendations for good practice on the storage of ovarian and prepubertal testicular tissue’ by Nugent et al. (Citation2000)) and in others the title was less helpful (e.g. ‘Department of Health donor information consultation: providing information about gamete or embryo donors’ by Hunt and Fleming (Citation2002)). In examples such as this it was only after reading the article that it became clear that the publication was in fact official BFS policy. We must therefore issue a caveat that the list of papers shown in Table 1 is only as accurate as it was possible to be by reviewing titles, authors, and abstracts. We cannot exclude the possibility that we may have missed some relevant policy papers, though we feel this is unlikely.
After 2003, the authorship of society papers published in the journal shifted and they started to become visibly more collaborative. This began with the publication of ‘A strategy for fertility services for survivors of childhood cancer’ which was published by a Multidisciplinary Working Group convened by the British Fertility Society (Citation2003), although the working party was convened and chaired under the auspices of the BFS. This was followed by a consensus statement on multiple births (Hamilton, Citation2007) which involved 8 professional organisations and 11 patient organisations, although again these were not listed as formal authors in the journal. By 2008 the paper on elective single embryo transfer signalled a new style of collaboration as both the BFS and the Association of Clinical Embryologists (ACE) were listed as authors, alongside the individuals who pulled the paper together (Cutting et al., Citation2008). These arrangements, where applicable, have continued ever since, with further collaborative papers including the 2008 guidelines on the screening of sperm, egg and embryo donors being published on behalf of five organisations (Association of Biomedical Andrologists et al., 2008) and the 2019 paper on oocyte cryopreservation (Cutting et al., Citation2008) which was produced on behalf of ACE and the BFS.
Interestingly, although collaborative papers between the various societies associated with the journal have become more common, we have been unable to identify any examples over the past 24 years involving the Irish Association of Clinical Embryologists (ICE) or the Irish Fertility Society (IFS). There have also been none published by, or in collaboration with, the Association of Reproductive and Clinical Scientists (ARCS), although this is perhaps to be expected given it was only established in 2020 (Kasraie et al., Citation2020). It is noteworthy that the journal has also published guidelines on behalf of other organisations (e.g. German guidelines for psychosocial counselling in the area of gamete donation by Thorn and Wischmann (Citation2009)), even though there was no formal relationship between the BFS and the professional body which produced them (Infertility Counselling Network Germany).
The data shown in Table 1 also include information on the number of views, citations and the Altmetrics; a measure of the attention a paper receives on social media, on-line news media and other non-traditional bibliometrics, (correct as of 15th May 2022). We have included this to see if it was possible to identify any markers of success to determine a paper’s popularity or impact. Based wholly on ‘views’, the laboratory guidelines published in 2012 by ACE (Hughes, Citation2012) and the ABA (Tomlinson et al., Citation2012) have collectively been the most popular with 12,926 and 5,517 unique views respectively. Similarly, the Policy and Practice paper by Harbottle et al. (Citation2015), which describes UK best practice guidelines on elective single embryo transfer, has 7,266 views. In terms of citations, arguably the best marker of academic impact, it is the paper by Cutting et al. (Citation2008) on guidelines for elective single embryo transfer which, at 133 to date, has had the highest number. Because citations can only increase over time, there may be papers which have been published more recently which will ultimately achieve a greater impact. We have not made any attempt to adjust citation numbers for time since publication, and so this will be for future editors to determine. Finally, in terms of Altmetrics, these show that the paper by Yasmin et al. (Citation2018) on guidelines for female fertility preservation has, to date, yielded the highest altmetrics score at 47. However, we should be careful about over-interpreting this finding since Altmetrics only became established around 2010 and so papers published before this time are unlikely to receive an accurate score, if at all.
Of course, in this editorial, we do not claim that the 49 papers listed in Table 1 represent the totality of the societies’ work in setting policy, guidelines and policy and practice papers over the last 24 years. We are aware that some formal papers produced by various Executive Committees may have been published elsewhere. For example, in the early days of the journal, the BFS itself chose to publish some of its responses to Department of Health and/or Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority consultations (e.g. British Fertility Society, Citation1999; Policy and Practice Sub-Committee, & Executive Committee of British Fertility Society, Citation2001), whereas in recent years these have been published on-line on the society website. Given the pressure of space in Human Fertility this is now wholly appropriate, but an absence of journal placed publication could erroneously give scholars and historians the view that responses of societies and professional bodies to public consultations are now less valuable. This is not the case. Moreover, the change in fashion/approach by the journal to providing subheadings to categorise published contributions has made it harder for us to be confident that we have identified all relevant papers accurately. It is only recently that Human Fertility has consistently used the ‘policy and practice’ label while many papers which would be classified in this way now, were actually published as original articles, commentaries or even under a miscellaneous label.
Eliran MorFinally, in reviewing the list of 49 articles summarised in Table 1, it is useful to consider their breadth and scope within reproductive medicine. An obvious conclusion is that relatively few of the papers over the past 24 years have focussed on male infertility, notwithstanding that some topics such as choosing the best embryo (Bolton et al., Citation2015), or infertility counselling (Crawshaw et al., Citation2013) are gender neutral endeavours. Nevertheless, it is sobering to note that only two articles have focussed exclusively on issues of male reproduction: (i) a paper in 2013 on semen quality and its relationship to natural pregnancy and assisted reproduction (Tomlinson et al., Citation2013); and (ii) a new paper in this volume on varicocele treatment and fertility outcomes (Maheshwari et al., Citation2020). Disappointingly, this is not unusual in reproductive medicine (see Barratt et al., Citation2021, for a discussion), but by highlighting the issue here we hope this will provide impetus for the various societies associated with Human Fertility to attempt to address the imbalance when commissioning new pieces of work.
In conclusion, we hope that this editorial will serve as a useful overview of the Policy Statements, Guidelines, and Policy and Practice papers that have been published in Human Fertility since 1998. Much fine work has been carried out, and if nothing else, we hope this editorial will serve as a useful compendium of what has been published and celebrate the major influence on policy and policymakers across a wide range of important topics which the BFS and associated societies have had in the last quarter century.
Akande, V., Turner, C., Horner, P., Horne, A., & Pacey, A, British Fertility Society. (2010). Impact of Chlamydia trachomatis in the reproductive setting: British Fertility Society Guidelines for practice. Human Fertility, 13(3), 115–125. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3109/14647273.2010.513893(open in a new window)
Association of Biomedical Andrologists, Association of Clinical Embryologists, British Andrology Society, British Fertility Society, & Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. (2008). UK guidelines for the medical and laboratory screening of sperm, egg and embryo donors (2008). Human Fertility, 11(4), 201–210. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14647270802563816(open in a new window)
Association of Clinical Embryologists, Bliss, British Fertility Society, British Infertility Counselling Association, Donor Conception Network, Endometriosis UK, Fertility Friends, Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, Infertility Network UK, Miscarriage Association, Multiple Births Foundation, National Gamete Donation Trust, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Royal College of Nursing, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, & Surrogacy UK. (2011). Multiple births from fertility treatment in the UK: a consensus statement. Human Fertility, 14(3), 151–153. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3109/14647273.2011.592759(open in a new window)
Balen, A. H., & Anderson, R. A, Policy & Practice Committee of the BFS. (2007). Impact of obesity on female reproductive health: British Fertility Society, Policy and Practice Guidelines. Human Fertility, 10(4), 195–206. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14647270701731290(open in a new window)
Barratt, C., De Jonge, C. J., Anderson, R. A., Eisenberg, M. L., Garrido, N., Rautakallio Hokkanen, S., Krausz, C., Kimmins, S., O'Bryan, M. K., Pacey, A. A., Tüttelmann, F., & Veltman, J. A. (2021). A global approach to addressing the policy, research and social challenges of male reproductive health. Human Reproduction open, 2021(1), hoab009. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoab009(open in a new window)
Bolton, V. N., Leary, C., Harbottle, S., Cutting, R., & Harper, J. C. (2015). How should we choose the 'best' embryo? A commentary on behalf of the British Fertility Society and the Association of Clinical Embryologists. Human Fertility, 18(3), 156–164. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3109/14647273.2015.1072646(open in a new window)
Clarke, H., Harrison, S., Perez, M. J., & Kirkman-Brown, J. (2021). UK guidelines for the medical and laboratory procurement and use of sperm, oocyte and embryo donors (2019). Human Fertility, 24(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14647273.2019.1622040(open in a new window)
Cutting, R., Morroll, D., Roberts, S. A., Pickering, S., & Rutherford, A, BFS and ACE. (2008). Elective single embryo transfer: guidelines for practice British Fertility Society and Association of Clinical Embryologists. Human Fertility, 11(3), 131–146. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14647270802302629(open in a new window)
Hamilton, M., Pacey, A., Tomlinson, M., Brison, D., Shaw, L., Turner, C., Witjens, L., Morris, P., Brown, C., Montuschi, O., Adams, J., Lieberman, B., & Speirs, J. (2008). Working Party on Sperm Donation Services in the UK: report and recommendations. Human Fertility, 11(3), 147–158. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14647270802170174(open in a new window)
Harbottle, S., Hughes, C., Cutting, R., Roberts, S., & Brison, D, Association of Clinical Embryologists (ACE) & The British Fertility Society (BFS). (2015). Elective Single Embryo Transfer: an update to UK Best Practice Guidelines. Human Fertility, 18(3), 165–183. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3109/14647273.2015.1083144(open in a new window)
Kennedy, R., Kingsland, C., Rutherford, A., Hamilton, M., & Ledger, W, British Fertility Society. (2006). Implementation of the NICE guideline - recommendations from the British Fertility Society for national criteria for NHS funding of assisted conception. Human Fertility, 9(3), 181–189. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14647270600908411(open in a new window)
Maheshwari, A., Muneer, A., Lucky, M., Mathur, R., & McEleny, K, British Association of Urological Surgeons and the British Fertility Society (2020). A review of varicocele treatment and fertility outcomes. Human Fertility, 1–8. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14647273.2020.1785117(open in a new window)
Nardo, L. G., Bosch, E., Lambalk, C. B., & Gelbaya, T. A. (2013). Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation regimens: a review of the available evidence for clinical practice. Produced on behalf of the BFS Policy and Practice Committee. Human Fertility, 16(3), 144–150. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3109/14647273.2013.795385(open in a new window)
Nardo, L. G., El-Toukhy, T., Stewart, J., Balen, A. H., & Potdar, N. (2015). British Fertility Society Policy and Practice Committee: adjuvants in IVF: evidence for good clinical practice. Human Fertility, 18(1), 2–15. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3109/14647273.2015.985454(open in a new window)
