Fertility and Sterility
Volume 92, Issue 4 , Pages 1276-1283 , October 2009

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis on in vitro fertilization clinic websites: presentations of risks, benefits and other information

  • Robert Klitzman, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • College of Physicians and Surgeons and Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Robert Klitzman, M.D., HIV Center, Unit 15, 1051 Riverside Drive, New York, NY 10032 (FAX: 212-543-6003).
    • ,
  • Beata Zolovska, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • Columbia University Medical Center, Columbia University, New York, New York
    • ,
  • William Folberth, B.A.

      Affiliations

    • Columbia University Medical Center, Columbia University, New York, New York
    • ,
  • Mark V. Sauer, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, New York
    • ,
  • Wendy Chung, M.D., Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, New York
    • ,
  • Paul Appelbaum, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, New York

Received 29 October 2007 ,Revised 30 July 2008 ,Accepted 30 July 2008.

References 

  1. Genetic testing and gene therapy: national survey findings. White Plains (NY): March of Dimes Birth Defect Foundation; 1992;
  2. Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, Van Echtec-Arends J, Sikkema-Raddatz B, Korevaar J. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:9–17
  3. Grifo J, Talebian S, Keegan D, Krey L, Adler A, Berkeley A. Ten-year experience with preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) at the New York University School of Medicine Fertility Center. Fertil Steril. 2007;88:978–981
  4. Vastag B. Group calls for stricter rules for assisted reproduction, ban of “extreme” technologies. JAMA. 2004;291:2306–2308
  5. Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: caveant lector et viewor—let the reader and the viewer beware. JAMA. 1997;227:1244–1245
  6. Winker MA, Flanagin A, Chi-Lum B, White J, Andrews K, Kennett RL, et al. Guidelines for medical and health information sites on the Internet. JAMA. 2000;283:1600–1606
  7. Klitzman R, Albala I, Siragusa J, Patel J, Appelbaum P. Disclosure of information to potential subjects on research recruitment websites. IRB. 2008;30:15–20
  8. Gordon JB, Barot LR, Fahey AL, Matthews MS. The Internet as a source of information on breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;107:171–176
  9. Lewiski EM, Rudolph LA, Kiebzak GM, Chavez JR, Thorpe BM. Assessment of osteoporosis-website quality. Osteoporosis Int. 2006;17:741–752
  10. Huang JYJ, Discepola F, Al-Fozan H, Tulandi T. Quality of fertility clinic websites. Fertil Steril. 2004;83:538–544
  11. Jain T, Barbieri R. Website quality assessment: mistaking apples for oranges. Fertil Steril. 2005;83:545–547
  12. Niederberger C. Assisted reproductive technologies on the web. Fertil Steril. 2005;83:550–552
  13. The Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Guidelines for advertising by ART programs. Fertil Steril. 2004;82(Suppl 1):S3
  14. Abusief M, Hornstein M, Jain T. Assessment of United States fertility clinic websites according to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM)/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology guidelines. Fertil Steril. 2007;87:88–92
  15. Pew Internet and American Life Project [Internet]. Demographics of Internet users [Published April 26, 2006]. Available from: http://www.pewinternet.org/trends/User_Demo_4.26.06.htm.
  16. Office of Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services. Clinical trial websites: a promising tool to foster informed consent. Washington (DC): Department of Health and Human Services; 2002;Report No.: OEI-01-97-00198
  17. Baars MJH, Henneman L, ten Kate LP. Deficiency of knowledge of genetics and genetic tests among general practitioners, gynecologists, and pediatricians: a global problem. Genet Med. 2005;7:605–610
  18. Burke S, Stone A, Bedward J, Thomas H, Farndon P. A “neglected part of the curriculum” or “of limited use”? Views on genetic training by nongenetics medical trainees and implications for delivery. Genet Med. 2006;8:109–115
  19. Kalfaglou AL, Scott J, Hudson K. PGD patients' and providers' attitudes to the use and regulation of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Reprod Biomed. 2005;11:486–496
  20. Hesse BW, Nelson DE, Kreps GL, Croyle RT, Arora NK, Rimer BK, et al. Trust and sources of health information. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:2618–2624
  21. Satterlund MJ, McCaul KD, Sandgren AK. Information gathering over time by breast cancer patients. J Med Internet Res. 2003;5(3):e15
  22. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [Internet]. Assisted reproductive technology: home [cited 2007 Sep 17]. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/ART/index.htm.

 R.K. has nothing to disclose. B.Z. has nothing to disclose. W.F. has nothing to disclose. M.V.S. has nothing to disclose. W.C. has nothing to disclose. P.A. has nothing to disclose.

 Supported by the National Human Genome Research Institute (R01 HG004214) and the National Center for Research Resources (UL1 RR024156).

PII: S0015-0282(08)03298-6

doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.07.1772

Fertility and Sterility
Volume 92, Issue 4 , Pages 1276-1283 , October 2009

Article Tools